|
|
The HPA will stand up against Proposition One--a ballot that would repeal same-sex marriage in Maine--by "Wrock-ing 4 Equality" on Oct. 24.
The Harry Potter Alliance is bringing together thousands of Harry Potter fans across the world to fight Proposition One. The basic gist is one day of activism set in Portland, Maine at the North Star Cafe (225 Congress Street Portland, Maine 04101) featuring Harry and the Potters and Draco and the Malfoys. The concert will be live streamed for fans to watch online. After the first show is over, concert attendees in Portland will canvass and those watching online will phone bank in conjunction with both Mass and Maine Equality. At the end of the day, we'll be coming together for a second concert to close things out.
Click here for more information.
Posted by
10-17-2009
at 1:35 PM
|
Fan Comments |
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 15:51:17
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 16:42:26
Go HPA! Will be joining in on this without a doubt!
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 17:20:02
I do not hate gay people like the people above. I believe them to be humans like sybillonwheels said, but I am a Christian, and believe that God meant marriage to be between a man and a woman. So, I strongly disagree with the message behind this event!
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 17:38:32
Im sorry, but it really doesnt matter what your religious beliefs are. This is not about you. This has nothing to do with you. This has nothing to do with your religion. This has to do with the law -- marriage is a civil and legal institution in the United States, and upon entering it, a couple receives countless rights, benefits, and privileges under the law. By not allowing gay couples to legally marry, you are basically saying that they do not deserve to be treated in the same legal manner that heterosexual couples are. This is not about your church -- this is about equal treatment under US law. It is not up to you who somebody else legally marries.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 17:44:25
I agree with sybillonwheels. I am also a Christian, but why does everyone forget that Jesus told us not to cast stones? Trying to force anyone to conform to your own religious beliefs is against everything this country stands for. Anyway, the bible is pretty noncommittal about homosexuality. Sure, the apostles letters speak against it, but I dont think Jesus himself mentions it once. And if Im wrong about that, feel free to point out where its discussed.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 17:56:28
cgeinert is correct. Further, the only parts of the Bible that speak against homosexuality are filled with dietary laws, laws around animal sacrifices and menstruation and even how to interact with the Leviites that most people today do not follow. The fact that a couple of quotes in the Bible continue to be used as a tool against homosexuality draws into question why the person doing the quoting is not following ALL the rules - and why are they following that one in particular? What about intolerance towards gay people do they find so appealing? Certainly we see in the Bibles greatest heroes those who stand on the side of love - true love. Deep authentic love. Not this "love the sinner, hate the sin" stuff - but true openness and curiosity about all of creation and our fellow human beings. Of course your religious interpretation and how you CHOOSE to walk upon this Earth is your choice.
Beyond that, sybillonwheels is right - this is not a question of the Bible since marriage law should constitutionally separate Church and State.
And more to the point, Harry Potters eleven years living in a cupboard reminds us that no one should have to live in the closet. And when asked about an unconventional marriage, we are reminded that Dumbledore would have been happier than any one to see a little more love in the world.
Lets stand on the side of love - for we who take the message of Harry Potter to heart, know that love is more powerful than fear, intolerance, and hatred. It is more noble, it is more powerful, and it is more accurate to the reality of our condition living together in this world.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 18:26:34
I am against gay marriage, not gay people.
No rant, thats how I feel. Dont change marriage for your views. when its traditional itself. Create something different.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 18:35:18
Yay! Best of luck at the event! By the way, Im also a Christian, and fully support gay marriage. It doesnt change anything about traditional marriage, and is their free will, even if it is considered a sin. Being an imperfect person myself, I cant and wont throw stones. If Christians are actually concerned about protecting the sanctity of marriage, why havent they tried this hard to outlaw divorce? They of course shouldnt do that either, but rather focus on living their OWN lives better. Lets get real and treat each other as equals.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 18:44:19
A lot of people used to say that interracial marriage violated "traditional marriage." Now when a justice of the peace said that in Louisiana this week everyone is calling for his resignation. But there was a time, not too long ago when this man would have had a lot of supporters just as today we see that people believe that gay marriage should not take place because it violates tradition. When people are discussing tradition they are referring to one of two things: 1- actual traditional history, or 2- a mythological concept of tradition as they would prefer. Marriage, traditionally speaking, has been a very fluid thing throughout its history. Any one who is actually interested in the actual history of marriage would see that that is the case. Those who would like to believe in a "mythological" concept that "marriage has always been ___ way" are not historically accurate. They are rewriting history for their own feeling of comfort - often comfort at the cost of another groups exclusion and persecution. Indeed, what is the tradition that bars people from equality in the United States. On race, that tradition has been around slavery and Jim Crow. On gender, that tradition has been around the disempowerment of women, violence toward women, and not allowing women to vote. On sexuality, that tradition has been around violence, alienation, repression, and an apathetic attitude toward gay men dying of AIDS that is largely responsible for what is now the present day AIDS epidemic that people of all nations and sexual orientations are dealing with. This is not a tradition that one should want to be associated with. I prefer the tradition of the abolitionists, the womens suffrage movement, and the movement for LGBT equality - and yes, I can find strong examples of people in all of those traditions within Christian circles. In todays world we see that a person is not allowed to visit their partner in the hospital because they are of the same sex. Their life partner suffers ...
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 18:46:29
Being against equal marriage is, in fact, being against gay peoples civil rights. This is a fact. No one is "changing" marriage. We are simply beginning to legally recognize marriages that have, thus far, been unrecognized due to rampant discrimination in the United States. The "tradition" argument does not hold -- try something else. Slavery was also "traditional". Segregation was also "traditional." Blocking women from the right to vote was also "traditional." Blocking interracial couples from the legal institution of marriage was also "traditional." And unfortunately, until recently, it was also "traditional" to block tax-paying gay Americans from the legal institution of marriage.
"Dont change marriage for your views" -- What views, may I ask? The viewpoint that all people must be treated equally under US law?
"Create something different" -- So, basically, you support a separate but equal system? I would also like to point out that not everybody views marriage the way that you do. So I would kindly ask you not to force your viewpoint of marriage on everybody else, and not to dictate to others what types of marriages are "acceptable." Mind your own business.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 19:00:05
I think it is good to have everyone who supports gay marriage working together. Goodness knows the opposition spends lots of time and money on it.
Heterosexual and homosexual people are exactly the same apart from what gender they happen to be attracted to. They love the same, they commit to life-long relationships the same, they feel the same pain, but they have a constant worry of being denied visitation to their loved one in the hospital, being unable to share basic health coverage, and other things heterosexual couples take for granted.
Everyone deserves equal rights, privileges and protection granted by the government. If the government is going to be involved in marriage, then homosexual people deserve equal rights. It really is quite simple. And such a marriage harms no one, so long as churches are not forced to perform the marriages (which they arent in any law supporting gay marriage). Im glad my country (Canada) has already granted equal rights.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 19:21:26
So glad they are coming to Maine to do this! Prop 1 really needs help in being voted down! As a resident of Maine it makes me really happy to see that fellow Harry Potter fans are raising noise about this! Thank you guys!
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 19:33:31
Im extremely excited about this event. As a fan of Harry Potter, its so easy to see the need for equality within the series and the need for equality in our own lives.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 19:42:08
I cant wait for this, Ill be watching online, but still. Its amazing that people can come together and do so much good in the world. This Maine protest will be AWESOME! Cant wait for the ustream, and to see it all happening.
And, as one of their other campaigns said: What Would Dumbledore Do?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 20:06:00
This "im not against gay people" crap is utter BS. Equality is EQUALITY, and if you small minded bigots cant handle that, you need to move to some theocracy in the Middle East. FYI, Christainity has NOTHING to do with this. This is NOT a religious issue. So you can stuff that argument. As for those "against same-sex marriage", well dont effing have one then.
Im sure your gay children will appreciate your hatred. Congrats to Muggletnet and the HPA, and the rest of you bigots can got back to filling your diapers.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 20:59:05
i say gays are going to HELL
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 21:12:31
Where is this "hell" that you speak of? Can you prove its existence? Care to point it out on a map? :)
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 21:47:32
purebloodaustin; the way that you address people with different sexual preferences than you as "gays" really alienates the humanity of people. I think you dont realize that anyone you know and love can be in that category, and the way that a lot of people say "the gays" reminds me of the dangerous us and them mentality that is involved in genocides.
Christianity says a lot of outdated things, and the modern church needs to recognize this and stop taking everything the Bible says literally. It was written thousands of years ago by people of an ancient culture; it is archaic and outdated. Society is changing and right now, marriage is a legal union between people in love. Because of the way society recognizes marriage, many couples are not allowed to marry or to gain legal rights regarded healthcare and education and childcare. This is an insult against a large community of people in loving relationships. The gender of these people should not matter; in fact, the very definition of gender is changing these days.
Im really excited for Wrocking out for Equality!
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 21:59:00
So many fallacious arguments, I dont know where to start.
The very point of laws is to enforce morality. Stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. Arson is wrong. Says who? Says the American people, through their elected representatives. Americans have a right to decide what the laws governing their society should be.
How is this a question of equality? Gays have the same rights as everyone else - if they marry a person of the opposite gender, they may receive all the same benefits, regardless of whom they are attracted to. There is nothing discriminatory about this. If you came forward tomorrow, announced that you were a necrophiliac-American, and that laws forbidding you from digging up someones remains are discriminatory because they keep you from being with the one you love, youd have to convince society first. And thats what happening here - people are deciding. This is democracy in action.
If laws forbidding gays to marry are discriminatory, arent laws forbidding close relatives, married persons, and the underage to marry discriminatory also? Shouldnt we abolish those too, or are you ok with that kind of bigotry? Will we soon see WRock events fighting to abolish those laws on Mugglenet, too? This is the kind of thing that will soon drive me away from this site. Keep your politics to yourself, and lets talk about Harry Potter. I know Potter is not politically neutral, but it is open to a variety of interpretations. Lets all be "liberal" - that is, favoring freedom, in our deference to the opinions of others.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 22:11:59
this event is a fantastic idea! there are (obviously, if youve read previous comments) those who are against it, but im really impressed to see the support behind this. im not in maine (wish i were... its gonna be amazing), but im definitely signing up to help for the phone banking. better go rally the friends to help out!!! :)
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 22:15:40
This is going to be a great campaign, and I am happy to see that the HPA is getting involved with this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I understand that some churches and religious groups are opposed to gay marriage, whatever their reasoning may be. However, there is a difference between church and state. It is unacceptable that some people are denied rights simply because of their sexuality. Just because a couple is homosexual does not mean that they should be excluded from the legal rights that a heterosexual couple would have.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 22:21:37
Wow, youre really an idiot. Yes, it is definitely an issue of equality under the law. If youve actually met gay couples, as I have, you would understand that their love is exactly the same as the love between a straight couple. Obviously, you do not understand the point of a secular government (which is the type of government that we have, in case you were interested). We do not create laws based on a bigoted groups so-called "morality." We create laws based upon ethics, which is quite different. Murder is wrong, because it harms people. Theft is wrong, because it harms people. Arson is wrong, because it harms people. If something poses no threat to the well-being of other human beings living in our society, then it is not wrong. Gay people do not pose a threat to anybody else, and are just as sane and worthy of respect as you or I. As for comparing them to necrophiliacs --- are you kidding me? Are you really that naive? Im sorry to burst your little bubble of ignorance, but dead bodies are not citizens of the United States, and therefore cannot sign a marriage contract. Children are also unable to consent and sign a marriage contract. Your arguments are completely naive, and quite frankly, ridiculous at best. Gay marriage does no harm to people, it simply allows loving couples to commit to each other under the law. I pray to God that you never have children.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 22:25:41
In addition to what sybillonwheels just said...
delirious5frea k: "How is this a question of equality? Gays have the same rights as everyone else - if they marry a person of the opposite gender, they may receive all the same benefits, regardless of whom they are attracted to."
So, if opposite-sex marriage were illegal as well, yet marrying your dog were not, the same logic would apply, wouldnt it? We would all get the same benefits from marrying our dogs, regardless of whether were attracted to them or not.
Equality is not about treating people the same, its about treating people fairly. Fairness and justice are not like politics, where people get to take a stand and choose. Fairness, by definition, is impartial. You cant politicize it.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-17 22:41:39
Lets remember this: two adults in a consensual relationship is what we are discussing here. Thats what we are discussing. I am inspired by all of the support that we have seen by people who believe in equality.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 07:32:13
Dictionary.com synonyms for "morality":
ethical motive, ethics, morals
Same thing. As to it being "one groups so-called morality", it isnt just one groups, its several. Its also apparently the morality of a majority of voters in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Tennessee. It is also, as of now, the apparent will of the people as enacted through their legislatures in Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, U.S. (at the Federal Level), Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Can that be changed? Yes, by ballot. And well see what happens. But please, Mugglenet, stop promoting divisive political events. The US is made up of a diverse group of people with different views.
As to those Christians who favor this, stop kidding yourselves. Calling yourself a Christian but dismissing Christian sexual ethics is like saying youre a physicist but you dont believe in that whole gravity pish-posh. The specific section of the Levitical law dealing with this says things like, dont have sex with kids, dont have sex with your mom, dont have sex outside of a faithful marriage. You might want to re-read it and see how much of it is ceremonial law and how much is sexual ethics embraced by the Christian church through the ages. Faithful Muslims and Jews believe the same thing. Marriage between people who can raise children and provide them a positive role model and loving parent of each gender has been the norm for ages.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 08:35:48
Dear "Delirious5freak": I commend you on your username! After all, we dont want to be like the Dursleys and take such pride in being perfectly normal thank you very much. None of us are "perfectly normal" and why should we be? The beauty of life is found not in its conformity but in its diversity.
Now as to your arguments. Ihave a hard time understanding your conception of Civil Rights in the United States. Marriage equality is an issue of Civil Rights. And Civil Rights in this country has always met great resistance at first because people fear what is going to happen when there is a change. Please let me know of all the terrible things that have happened due to the end of slavery - something which a majority of states were once passionately in favor of. Or tell me please about the terrible things that happened on account of women getting the vote; something that also was considered divisive, but that activists challenged until today is no longer considered divisive. Or about Jim Crow ending and blacks getting the right to vote - had their been an Internet in the 1950s and a Mugglenet at that time, the exact same comment (almost to a t) would have been made as the one that you just made. Further, tell me about all of the terrible things that have happened since interracial marriage has been allowed. Now....please tell me about the terrible things that have happened to heterosexual marriages since equal rights became allowed in Massachusetts. Or the Netherlands. Or Canada. I believe civilization did not end as the members of the movement against equality and carrying out the Homophobic Legacy had passionately forewarned. All that happened is that people are allowed to visit their loved ones in the hospital and have the same rights as all people have. As for your Leviticus argument, I encourage you to pursue your faith whole heartedly. But I truly hope you are not engaged in animal sacrifices and I bet you arent Kosher - there is far more written on Kosher rule...
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 09:14:07
any way, I think you get my point. Also, Im curious if you think it should be legal for heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce or who choose not to have children to be allowed to get married. Im also curious why you think a married couple having children in an overpopulated world is the best thing. Its obviously a good thing - but so would their devoting time to service in other ways. But my overall point is that things are changing for the better in regards to equality and so far is has not caused any real harm to civilization and wont. The only ones that seem to be causing harm to civilization are the usual suspects: bigots. Please dont be one them. Please support equality now.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 10:24:48
This is a great idea, supporting a great cause. Awesome for people to organize this stuff. Im glad to see so many comments supporting equality!! I hope the event is a great success. This is totally awesome! But, I just have to say to purebloodaustin, Do you think DUMBLEDORE would go to Hell??? (Sybillonwheels, love your comment after that!!!)
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 13:35:56
Dear delirious freak (perfect name for you, BTW),
Unfortunately for you, and for those like you, it doesnt really matter what you think about gay couples getting legally married, because at the end of the day, it all comes down to a little thing that I like to call "equal rights for all." The entire last half of your post is completely irrelevant to me, and to the law for that matter, as its completely about your religion. Quite frankly, it doesnt matter if 1% of Americans support gay marriage or 99% support gay marriage. We do not live in a democracy (as you have so falsely stated), we live in a constitutional republic. It is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution for the majority to dictate minority civil rights. These bans on equality will be lifted through the state courts, and eventually, equal marriage will be legalized by the Supreme Court. Keep your religion out of other peoples legal rights, delirious freak.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 15:39:37
@Delirious:
"So many fallacious arguments, "
Its funny you say this given how many you use.
"The very point of laws is to enforce morality."
Morality is subjective. Laws protect our rights as citizens. THAT is their point. Go take a Con-Law class.
"Americans have a right to decide what the laws are"
Wrong. Were not a democracy kiddo. Were a republic. Minority rights DO trump majority opinion.
"This isnt discrimination / We all have the right to marry the opposite sex"
Im saddened that you think this is a mature argument. Even if everyone has that right (false, given that marriage was NOT legally limited until recently) then it is STILL discrimination based on sex.
A man can marry a woman. A woman cant marry a woman SOLELY because shes a woman. Sorry but that IS discrimination.
"f you announced that you were a necrophiliac-American"
C hildren, animals, corpses, etc have no legal status and cant consent. Come back when you have an argument that doesnt instantly admit your bigotry. Comparing consenting adults to rapists of the dead, solely because YOU think equal rights only need to go so far, is disgusting beyond reason.
"Keep your politics to yourself"
Dont tell someone how to run their own website. This IS connected directly to Potter so try again. Nobodys forcing you to participate.
"Were a democracy and people dont want gays to marry!"
Wrong on so very many levels.
1-Its a fairly even split in the nation and numerous states are legalizing it. The anti-gay victories arent by wide margins.
2-The MAJORITY didnt want interracial couples to be allowed to marry. Notice how it was made legal anyway? They were equal. Everyone could marry the same race. Notice how that still wasnt equality and how the SC deemed those laws unconstitutional?
Marriage is a legal right. End of story. Denying it to gay couples is discrimination no matter how you try to justify your personal bigotry.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 17:29:50
I read where someone said that marriage is a legal institution, and I have to say that theyre wrong. Marriage is NOT a legal institution, its not something that was created when government came about. Marriage predates government and written law. Before government became so involved in the lives of people, the only thing people had to do to get married was go to a church and say their vows and be married by a minister/priest. And then the government recognized it. So do play it off like marriage is something that falls under the law, that government created, because it doesnt. It is simply a religious tradition that government has taken over, like so many other things in this country.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 17:50:14
Oh looksy, the anti-equality people are wrong, yet again. First of all, civil marriage, as it applies to the United States, has been a legal matter since the colonization of America. The separation of civil marriage from religious marriage was imported to the New World by the Dutch colonists of New Amsterdam, and has remained intact ever since. For somebody to claim that marriage is not a legal institution requires nothing but blatant and blind stupidity. It IS a legal institution. This is a FACT. You can have all the religious ceremonies you want, but that does mean that you have a right to claim some sort of monopoly over the word marriage. Marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years, and has been part of nearly every culture throughout history, regardless of religion, and has evolved into the civil and legal institution that it is today. Today, atheists and agnostics get legally married every year. 30% of civil marriages performed in the US in 2008 were non-religious. Keep your religion out of other peoples marriages. Not everybodys marriage is religious. Many people get married for *gasp* love.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 18:22:13
Im all for someone having two moms. Thats why when marriage is legal for gays, I will petition for it to be legal in the form of polygamy. When two people are in love, it doesnt matter what anyone else thinks. I can be in love with more than one woman. People do it all the time, they just dont get married, they have multiple partners. This way, I can create a stable life for my wives and children without changing partners every year or two. More moms the better!
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 18:36:07
I didnt say Christian. I said religious. Since, you know, most religions as a whole dont believe in same-sex marriage. By telling any religious person that their institutions can be taken over by a government and controlled by it is a little daunting, wouldnt you say, considering their are a lot of people that follow some religion? And your example, sybillonwheels, just proves my point. Marriage was a religious institution until government decided to take it over. And Im not trying to make a claim over the word "marriage." Im merely saying that marriage began as something people practiced as part of their religion. Your statistics are arbitrary, since Im not referring to the legal rights granted to people by a state-recognized union. Im speaking about marriage. Which, despite what you so condescendingly assumed, I believe should be for love. KEEP YOUR POLITICS OUT OF OUR RELIGION.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 18:42:22
Zynome, gay marriage will not lead to polygamy. It has not led to polygamy in any of the several nations that have now legalized it. This "slippery-slope" argument is preposterous and pathetic. No matter what side of the gay marriage debate you are on, what we can all agree upon is that marriage is a legal contract that a couple obtains when they decide to spend their lives together. What marriage represents is a commitment; you cannot commit to someone if you are screwing somebody else on the side. Spare me the "slippery-slope" scare tactics.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 18:44:32
you need to remember that dambledore is in a book hes not real griffindore_seeker_78
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 18:58:47
flickofthewrist, Quite frankly, it doesnt matter if most religions do not "believe" in same-sex marriage. This has absolutely nothing to do with your religion. As for "religious institutions being taken over by a government"...are you using your brain? Nobody has taken over your religious institutions. Nobody is trying to take over your religious institutions. This has nothing to do with your religious institutions. Your churches have a right to perform wedding ceremonies for whoever they see fit, and they also have a right to refuse to perform wedding ceremonies that they do not agree with; nobody is trying to force churches to do anything whatsoever. Your arguments are absolute nonsense. "Keep your politics out of our religion" -- where exactly did that come from, pray tell? NOBODY is forcing politics INTO your religion to begin with. The government offers CIVIL MARRIAGE to couples as an economic and legal convenience, regardless of any religion. And no, my statistics are not arbitrary, since you were clearly arguing against equal civil marriage based on religious grounds. Marriage equality is a legal and civil matter, not a religious one. Keep your religion out of politics.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:01:02
I need proof on the following two claims by
1; "ince, you know, most religions as a whole dont believe in same-sex marriage"
Go ahead and PROVE this. Christianity? Arguable. Same for Judaism. Off the top of my head the only TWO you can solidly prove are Islam and Scientology. The rest, at worst, are debated. HIGHLY.
2; "Marriage was a religious institution until government decided to take it over. "
This has never been proven. Marriages origins are all over the place really. The one thing we DO know is that if it WAS founded in religion it was NOT founded in any religion currently practiced.
As for Sybil, youre wrong as well. There ARE people who commit to multiple partners. Just because it isnt your thing doesnt make it wrong or impossible. Really, your attitude about how "You cant commit to more than one person" is really no different than "you cant love the same sex".
And to the pureblood kid...could you have picked a better name to use as someone with obvious prejudices?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:09:34
Its really ridiculous when Christians are being persecuted and called biggots on here for making it perfectly clear where they stand on certain issues. This is my only problem with MuggleNet; its far too political. I come here to get updated on HP, but get sidetracked by this article. Im a Christian. I have always been taught to hate the sin, but love the sinner. I refuse to support laws that embrace and tolerate sin, such as laws allowing same-sex marriage. I have had gay friends, and these friends knew how I felt about their behavior. Its the same with my friends who engage in drugs, alcohol, and premarital sex. I dont agree with these behaviors, but I love my friends dearly. And for those of you other "Christians" on here who say that youre pro gay marriage, please dont kid yourself. Its all or nothing, you cant pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe. I commend my fellow Christians on here who have taken a stand.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:14:25
Youre wrong, sybillonwheels. The institution of marriage-the idea of it, its original concept and foundation-is religious. It had nothing to do with government or legal matters. By government granting people what they call "marriage," implying that it is one in the same as a religious union, then it has control of it, since a religious group cant tell the government to back off, like the government can a church. If the government differentiated between the two, thatd be different, but since its not the case, you cant tell me that marriage, which DID start religiously, has become state controlled. Governments more or less said, "No, well marry people, they dont need to be married religiously." How can you say that isnt the case, when that IS what happened?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:15:42
Still, purebloodaustin, there are tons or people who are gay that are wonderful people, that make good decisions and do the right thing and try to make the world a better place. Just like Dumbledore. I think that if there is some sort of higher power, they would judge people on whether or not they do those things, not if they are attracted to those of the same gender or not. Dont mean to offend anyone, or anyones religion, but if God judges people based on THAT, I dont think hes a very smart or tolerant guy. Thats why I think that if theres a god, they are supportive of equality for all, and supportive of people who try to make the world a better place, and supportive of people who try to make it so all people can be happy. And I think that if the Christian God exists, there is a chance that he thinks all this, and if he thinks all this, sometimes some of the people who worship him accidentally get a different message, and dont think about what is right, and are blinded by what they THINK their god is telling them, and then people like you, purebloodaustin, say things like what you have said, and I think you are wrong. And, probably, if there is a higher power, it thinks you are wrong too. And if it doesnt, if it agrees with you, Im okay with being wrong.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:19:26
caitibaby, Spare me the persecution complex. You are 76% of the population. You are not persecuted. I dont care what you think about gay people, and I dont care what you think about their relationships. The fact of the matter is, we live under a secular government, that is supposed to provide equal protections for all under the law, regardless of what one group of people might think about another group. You can be against gay couples getting legally married all you want, but that does not give you the right to dictate to them what civil rights they can or cannot have. This is why we live in a republic, and not a democracy. You have no right to tell another individual what to do with their lives, or to try to control who they can or cannot legally marry. "You cant pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe"? Sure you can; youre already doing so. By your username, Im guessing that you are female, which means that (according to the Bible) you are not allowed to speak unless you are given permission to by a man. So stop speaking.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:23:41
Quit pretending like you understand the Bible. Its a lot more complex than reading a sentence. Dont trivialize a religion.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:25:01
Okay, I have not read the Bible. sybillonwheels, or anybody that knows, does it really say that???
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:25:41
caitibaby1 get over yourself. You dont get to decide what Christian dogma is and, no, it isnt nearly as cut and dry as youd like to pretend. Homosexuality as sin is a concept that is HIGHLY debated with both sides having, at least, decent arguments. Dont kid yourself. Just because YOU read it one way, doesnt mean youre correct. So please dont belittle other people just because they might have a different take on the text than you. As for "picking and choosing", trust me, youre doing it just as much, if not more than they are so feel free to ditch the hypocrisy.
Oh, and lose the "I have gay friends, so Im not a bigot" cliche. It doesnt work. How good of a friend are you when you openly support your friends being treated as second class citizens? Pretty sure Christ never once condoned discrimination. So before you go calling other people "Christians" with the quotes, why dont you do the research and make sure they cant refer to you in just as insulting a manner? Because, between you and them, Im pretty sure youre the one who deserves the quote marks.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:27:12
flickofthewrist, The government DOES differentiate between civil marriage and religious marriage. It does not force itself into religious matters, contrary to your claims. "Its original concept and foundation-is religious. It had nothing to do with government or legal matters." Well, it does now. And unless you have a time machine you can jump into, youre just going to have to deal with the fact that we have a civil, and secular institution of marriage.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:29:31
Dudes, there is some messed-up thinking going on here. Same-sex love being equated to necrophilia? Marriage being claimed as the sole property of religion?
Im bisexual, and folks, you heard it here first: I do not want to get funky with corpses. I dont want to force any religion to recognize my marriage. Frankly, I dont give a Weasley twins missing ear if *any* religion cares to recognize same-sex marriage; I just wont join one that wont do so.
What I do care about, deeply, is the United States government extending equal marriage rights to all consenting adults. Every one of us should be able to get married to any consenting adult who can stand us :p Instead, only heterosexual couples get the benefits that the state gives to married couples.
That, folks, is wrong. If some consenting adult couples are allowed to benefit, and others arent, that there is what we call "discrimination". And as Hermione pointed out when she started S.P.E.W., that is messed. Up.
Im disappointed. I thought HP fans were all about love. Folks who spoke up on behalf of this campaign, you wrock
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:35:57
I realize that there is debate over some things in the Bible, thank you, however some things are clearly stated. Marriage being between a man and a woman is one of them. Dont pretend that Christians arent persecuted, because they are. I have some really strong beliefs, and I get persecuted for that all the time. I respect the fact that everyone on here has an opinion, but my Christian opinion is no less legitimate than your secular opinions. I cant force anyone to believe what I believe, but I can certainly state what I believe.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:36:10
Sybil, fighting bigotry with bigotry doesnt work, so please stop doing it. Christianity has NOTHING to do with this debate. Dont blame the religion itself for the faults of its followers. Or do you really think Islam is all about blowing yourself up in the name of a diety?
As for the "Christian persecution complex", youre right on that and Cattii is the perfect example. The moment "Good Christian morals" are called into question for them being anything other than "christian" or "moral", the "Were so persecuted because you dont want us to have control of your life" mantra comes out and its ridiculous.
Admittedly this type of "gays dont need equal rights" doesnt shock me AS much in HP fandom than in others (Buffy namely) due to HPs lack of any overt LGBT characters/plot points (Dumbledore not quite being an exception given it being "Word of Author" aside from his letter to Grindlewald), but it still disturbs me. The series was about acceptance of other people for who and what they are at its core. The villain is such because of self-loathing and bigotry....
So how is it that fans can openly embrace discrimination? Its one thing not to like LGBT issues, or to want to be involved. That I get. Its quite another to say that LGBT persons should be treated as second class.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:40:34
And the people that dont support same-sex marriage dont rock? Theyre not good people? Theyre not kind, loving people? Thats discrimination.
I dont wish bad thing upon gay people. I dont want them to be persecuted for how they live their lives. I think people who beat or ridicule gays are disgusting. But, you have to understand that people DO still see marriage as an institution that belongs between a man and woman. Whether you like it or not, a lot of people feel that way. And they see legalization of same-sex marriage as a direct violation of what they believe marriage is. How is one person any more tolerant than another just because they dont believe two people of the same sex can be married? Its not like they hate them, or think theyre evil, horrible people. Just like I dont believe in polygamous marriage. Its not different. Marriage MUST have limits and confines, whether were speaking civilly or religiously. And you cant just ask people to completely change their views of what marriage is, and is not, and take it lightly.
I for one believe same sex couples should be granted the same rights that a civil "marriage" gives. But I cant change my views on marriage, just like you wont change youre views.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:40:55
Trunk, I have nothing against peoples religion, as long as they dont try to force it into our legal system. I have nothing against people believing whatever they want to believe, as long as they dont try to force others to live by their dogma. This is what I take enormous issue with: religious people trying to exert control over other peoples lives and trying to limit their civil rights under the law.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:42:52
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:46:56
Weird, last post got eaten. Lets try again:
Quotes taken from Cati (is there a quote function on here?)
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:48:18
I love how all the comments on Leaky are like, "Awesome," and "I cant wait to see Harry and the Potters," and "I wonder if Dan Radcliffe could lend support from afar?" and "Its so great how Evanna takes part in all these things" and were like completely having whole debates over here. I love Mugglenet!
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:51:20
Gryffindor Seeker, youre right. That is a great thing. Its because were intelligent people. Even though were arguing our own view points, its obvious Mugglenet has smart readers.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 19:59:01
Ok, well give this one last try. So I cant copy paste huh?
Quotes are Cati, just for clarity:
"I realize that there is debate over some things in the Bible, thank you" Please do not respond to me if youre going to ignore what I actually said. I didnt say "some things". I am very clearly referring to this issue. "However some things are clearly stated. Marriage being between a man and a woman is one of them" Prove it. Because you are very, very wrong here. There is no verse that defines marriage with such limitations. Do not pretend that just because YOU dont see the debate, it doesnt exist. Marriage is never once Biblically defined as "one man, one woman". The only verses used to prove that claim are ones that have been taken BLATANTLY out of context with their surrounding text. "Dont pretend Christians arent persecuted because they are". Not in the US kid. Being told you dont vote on, and control other peoples rights doesnt mean youre persecuted. "I have strong beliefs and I get persecuted all the time" Really? I like how you offer up any examples. Do tell us what happened. Tell me, how often is it (in Industrialized, Western nations like the US/UK) that Christians are murdered for being Christian? Now compare that with how often "Christians" are the ones to murder LGBTQ people. "I respect the fact that everyone has an opinion but my Christian opinion is no less legitimate than your secular ones". Nobody ever said it was. Your opinion is on a public forum though which means it, like ALL opinions, is up for debate. Being a "christian opinion" is irrelevant to that. "I cant force anyone to believe what I do but I can certainly state what I believe." Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. Others are entitled to their opinion ABOUT your opinion though. Get over it. Someone contesting your claim is NOT the same as persecuting you. Not even CLOSE. Telling someone they dont deserve equal rights though? Now THAT is persecution.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 20:14:32
Not to double post, just need to give the personal "yay" that that finally posted. Third times the charm, yea?
Id try and put a new spin on the conversation at this point normally but Im comin up with squat.
How bout the point with this particular vote that it is a literal removal of a right? Previous ballots (aside from Prop 8) were cases where SSM wasnt legal already but still outlawed. This case is where SSM is a current legal right that could be removed.
Similarly, what about the fact that the anti-side has been using flat out lies and manipulation (ie-scare tactics) in their ads? Can someone explain why thats allowed?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 20:21:17
Frankly, this is for the voters of Maine to decide, not the "Harry Potter fans across the world".
A more honest name for HPA would be the the HP *Liberal* Alliance since you only support leftwing causes and this group does not reflect the views of right-leaning HP fans (of which there are many).
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 20:28:27
Fourfan: Explain to me how you think it justified that the majority gets to tell the minority which rights it should and should not have because, honestly, that floors me.
Do you think interracial marriage should have remained illegal, given that the majority opinion was against it?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 20:36:57
1. This is for the people of Maine really...
2. HP Alliance is more leftwing...
3. Marriage for me is between a man and a woman.
4. I believe gays should have the same rights/benefits that marriage between a man and woman brings.
5. I agree with Gryffindor_Seeker!
6. 1 Corinthians 6
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 20:49:43
Leviticus 18:22&23 22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination 23: Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself wherewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto. In other words, a man should not lie with another man as he would with a woman, it is an abomination. I added verse 23 to help add that God doesnt want a person to lie with an animal either. Both acts are abominations in the sight of God. Right there in the bible. Now, if you are not christian nor believe in the bible then that is fine. But this country is mostly christian and was founded on christian principles. I believe it should stay that way.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 21:01:38
Zynome, you couldnt be more wrong if you tried. A-we were NOT founded on Christian morals. We were founded on secularism. Guess what? Founding fathers? Many of them were diests, not Christian. Please get over that tired old stereotype and fallacy. As for your Biblical verse, are you Jewish? If not, then why are you quoting from the Old Testament as if it is law? Christ himself says flat out that he has come to FULFILL the OT. He brought it to an end; closed it. Christs sacrifice removes the requirements of Old Testament laws by giving us the new covenant. Many laws are restated but, in reality, they all come down to two: The law of agape (love) (ie-dont hurt anyone in any way) and dont blaspheme. Christs coming means Levitical law doesnt apply under Christian doctrine. Those are HIS words. Or do you think eating shellfish is a sin? You dont get to pick and choose. @lifeisgood: 1-Except that it does go beyond that. Also, see the above comment. 3- Do you feel that should be made law though? I know you give the for me part which is cool, but do you feel that should be something everyone should be held to? 4-Marriage IS a right though, so thats something of a paradox if youre against SSM. And no, civil unions arent good enough. Separate but equal is not, nor has it ever, been equal under the law. 6-Is that a verse being quoted as Biblical condemnation of homosexuality? I forget the numbers so Im not sure its the one Im thinking. If it is, then go grab a handful of different translations. Youll see a different term in that slot almost every time. It was, at the time, a word with no meaning specifically. It has no translation and, at best, comes to something like man and couch. To say it translates to homosexuality is, at the most innocent, grossly stretching what the word means or, at worse, a blatant mistranslation.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 21:09:29
So basically, Zynome, you believe that since you are a Christian, you have a right to instill your religion into US law, thereby forcing everybody else in the country to live by your religious beliefs? Because thats exactly what you just said. And no, this country was not founded on Christianity, it was founded on the ideals of economic, religious, and individual freedoms for all of its citizens, and that includes gay Americans. "The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion" - John Adams. If you want to live by the Christian religion, Zynome, then that is just fine. But dont tell others that they cannot legally marry the person of their choosing because YOU do not agree with it. They do not need your approval. They do not need your blessing. They do not need the blessing of your religion. We live under a secular government, please keep your religion out of other peoples lives.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 21:17:43
Okay all you judgemental Christians give other Christians a bad name. I am a Christian and personally what a person does privately in their own life has no impact on me. Jesus says in the bible to love one another and to not pass judgement lest ye be judged. You might not agree with the lifestyle but why does that have to lead to hate, bigotry, and intolerance. Were called to love others as Jesus loved us and show compassion. The bible says that all sin is the same. So if youre calling the LGBT community sinners than you better take a look in the mirror people because if youve read your bible you know we are all sinners, so dont cast stones. I cant understand prejudice and hate of any kind and it baffles the mind to see all the progress the world has made in so many areas, but still in some its as if we still live in the dark ages. Its time we show love instead of hate.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 21:29:17
@flickofthewrist: You said, "And the people that dont support same-sex marriage dont rock? Theyre not good people? Theyre not kind, loving people? Thats discrimination."
Discrimination? No, thats just disagreement. I dont agree with the way non-supporters think, but Im not trying to pass legislation that would prevent them from getting married. If someone doesnt think that my relationships with a same-sex partner are as valid as those with an opposite-sex partner, then youre dang right: to me, that doesnt rock, or wrock. It sucks. If I date people of one sex, it passes without comment. If I date people of another, I get harassed, denied the right to marry, and can be fired for my sexual orientation. I am not okay with that, and I am not okay with any action intended to maintain this status quo. Its irrelevant to me if the people performing those actions are otherwise "good", "kind", or "loving": theyre treating me like a second-class citizen, and I will not apologize for refusing to accept that treatment.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 21:30:00
Trunkstheslayer, to answer your questions, I think the people of Maine get to decide what is right for their state. And, no, I dont think interracial marriage should have remained illegal. (that wasnt even addressed in my post so not sure why you brought it up to me??)
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 21:35:29
Fourfan, please reread my post then and maybe youll understand why I brought up interracial marriage. You are saying that the majority opinion should trump minority rights when it comes to same-sex marriage. Why do you not say the same thing when it comes to interracial marriage? Youre saying the people of Maine should get to decide if gays can marry. Youre saying that the majority gets to decide one way or the other. Well in the case of interracial marriage the majority HAD decided; interracial marriage was illegal by the majoritys opinion. Why do you think the majority gets to decide now if they shouldnt have gotten to decide in the past? I dont know how to make this comparison and contradiction much clearer but Im trying. Hopefully you understand where Im coming from on this. Why should the majority get to decide what rights the minority gets? Why are you ok with that happening when it comes to gay couples, but not interracial ones?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 22:17:22
Trunkstheslayer, perhaps it is you who needs to reread *my* posts.
It was the Supreme Court that decided to strike down remaining interracial marriage laws in the late 60s.
We are currently under DOMA federal law which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and also means individual states can vote on the issue -which is what Maine is doing. Not Harry Potter fans "across the world" lol. Sorry, but thats just a bit silly to me.
ps. so its not "me" who is saying the people of Maine get to decide - its the law of our land! Feel free to protest, I guess, but unless you live in Maine as a gay person OR a straight person, I think its their business, really (unless the Supreme Court decides to rule its unconstitutional like they did with the laws banning interracial marriages - then this issue wont exist!)
Do you believe in States Rights, btw?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 22:27:22
"Open your eyes and take in everything that you see
Look at all the colors like , yellow, blue, & green
We can take an airplane and fly across the globe
Look down upon the colors, everyone come on, lets go
Because
Love, love, love, la la love
La la love makes the world go round
Love, love, love, la la love
La la love makes the world go round
Open your ears and listen what the world has to say
Hear the birds & bells and you will have a brighter day
Everyone has a special song deep inside their heart
If you want, you could sing with us, its the perfect place to start
Love, love, love, la la love
La la love makes the world go round
You cant hurt me with the things that you do
Ill pick up dandelions and Ill give them to you
Puppy dogs, kitty cats swimming through love
Love, love, love, la la love
La la love makes the world go round
Love, love, love, la la love
La la love makes the world go round"
Pretty much, just let people love each other and get married. Its not going to hurt you. If you dont believe in same sex marriages then dont marry someone from the same sex. Nobody is forcing you to. Dont force someone else to not be able to get married. No one has the right to say that someone else cant marry who they want. Theres a separation between church and state for a reason. Religious beliefs shouldnt have a say in the matter at all.
Heres an example. I think soda is bad for everyone. Its just sugar. Im not going to go up to you and tell you that you cant drink it anymore because its against my beliefs. Its not my right. Its your right to drink it no matter how I feel about it. If you love that soda then you should be able to drink it.
Its really that simple.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 22:40:53
But what about legalizing drugs? Legalizing prostitution? Legalizing certain murders? Legalizing owning any animal you want? Where does it start and where does it stop? There are always going to be those that want something to be legalized that the majority does not. Always. If we dont set limits and stick to them then there will be chaos. Its always going to be just one more thing to "make right" and "make equal". Majority rules, plain and simple. Thats what happens in Congress, thats how we pick our representatives, thats how laws are made. If the minority doesnt like it then there are other places where the majority has said it to be ok.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 22:41:59
Theres so much debate going on here - its great! Thought Id throw my voice in....
I have a strong set of religious beliefs, but I have a pretty strong belief in separation of church and state. Its interesting to me that the majority of the debate about a *political* issue is being treated with *religious* arguements.
The biggest thing I think to note on this call, though, is that while MassEquality (who is sponsoring the phone banking) is encouraging people to vote against Prop 1, the main reason that theyre phone banking is to get people to vote in the first place. (you can see in the script they provide that the goal is not to convert voters...its just to get people to the polls!)
So in a way, this campaign is just as much about exercising our democratic right to vote as it is about gay marriage. Plain and simple - people who get phone calls saying "go vote" are more likely to vote. This is an off year where voter turnout is typically pitiful.
So kudos to the HPA and all of our phonebankers who are taking part in this! Your support is fantastic!!
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 23:09:24
@karenberstein Great Point! The bottom line is getting people to vote! Off years are just as important as every other voting year. More emphasis should be put on voting whenever there is a vote to be made.
@Zynome Drugs have been legalized. Theyre over-the-counter drugs and prescription drugs, cigarettes and alcohol. There are millions of people addicted to them already. Prostitution is legal in Nevada (except where the population is too high). These have nothing to do with this situation. Its not about majorities. Its not about minorities. It about rights. Marriage is already legal for some. Why not all? You cant bring up drugs, and murder when talking about marriage. Were talking about love here. Is there a certain part of the population (above 21 yrs old of course) that can drink but another part that cant? Now wouldnt that be ridiculous.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 23:10:47
Again, Zynome, this "slippery-slope" argument brought forth by the anti-equal rights crowd is absolutely ridiculous. Did you just compare gay marriage to murder? How obnoxious are you people? The fact of the matter is that we make laws to protect our citizens. Drugs are harmful to our citizens, for obvious reasons. Murder is harmful to our citizens, for obvious reasons. Theft is harmful to our citizens, for obvious reasons. These are issues that affect everybody in our society. On the other hand, allowing loving gay couples to legally marry does not affect the majority of our citizens. It only affects a very specific minority of US citizens, providing these couples with the same legal rights and responsibilities that straight couples currently enjoy. And no, majority does not rule, due to the fact that we do not live in a democracy. Please research the founding of this country, and you will learn that we are a representative republic. Under the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, each and every American (and believe it or not, this includes gay Americans and their spouses) must be provided the same legal rights and be treated equally under the law. Yes, we do get to vote, but only on issues that affect the vast majority of citizens, and not just a specific group of people. You do not have the right to dictate a gay couples legal rights, because it simply has nothing to do with you. Issues of minority civil rights always trump majority opinion. The majority did not want to grant women equal rights. The majority did not want to grant racial minorities equal rights. 70% of Americans did not want to allow interracial couples the right to legally marry, but this was struck down by the Supreme Court. No, majority does not always rule. You have no right to deny loving gay couples the same rights, privileges, and benefits that straight couples take for granted under the law, simply because you do not "approve" of them. Mind your own business, this is not about you.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-18 23:14:32
Zynome, that bible verse specifically applies to men. So is lesbianism ok?
Ok. I WAS Catholic, but due to the fact that I had a girlfriend, I ended up not going to Mass. Then when my family moved to a new area last year, the local Parish Priest came around. When he asked me would I go to Mass, and I said no, giving my reasons, he said "While many people stick to the traditional bible meanings, I dont. It doesnt matter what your preference is, as long as you believe. Come around if you want, you wont be hounded out."
Before you say, he was in his sixties.
Theres a LOT of churches accepting gay and lesbian relationships. Episcopalians and Anglicans, for example. Random churches of other faiths are starting to say its ok.
The thing is, I wont be able to get married in the forseeable future, because Im Irish. Colin Farrells brother went to Canada to get married. My best friend just moved to England, so he could marry his boyfriend of three years.
Im fifteen, but the doctors in the local hospital know me well. Im in there at least once a month, with bruising or cuts. Im off crutches two weeks, after having my leg stood on by two people. They dont care that Im human, they just want to hurt me.
I attended CTYI, and wanted to be a doctor. I dropped out of school in June, after my exams. Im too afraid to go back.
You say Christians are persecuted? Are you treated worse than a dog for it? I bet not.
Thank you to the HPA for bringing this up, and thspn95 for living like Jesus said to, loving people for who they are, not who they love.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 05:07:17
Im a christian. Still, religion and government law should, never, EVER, EVER! E.V.E.R. be mixed. That would generate more hatred and chaos than anything. By allowing christians to live as we please, GLBT should be able to live as THEY please. If not for them, then for the sake of peace. The gay couple down your street will NOT bite. You dont get to control their behavior in the same way they dont get to control ours. And remember: hating any group (african americans, murderers, women, gays, hispanics, plumbers) does not keep them from existing. Ought to let them live happily since they are going to exist whether they are happy or not. Nuff said.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 07:22:06
deliriou5freak, I think that mugglenet not only posts about Harry Potter, but what the Harry Potter fandom is doing. The Wrock for Equality post is one out of thousands.
Also, Im not really understanding the comparison between gay marriage and marriage for necrophiliacs and the underage. Considering the former is the consenting relationship between adult and the the parties in the latter groups cant give consent.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 08:24:46
Fourfan, if youre not going to answer my questions then dont bother responding with your cheap dodges. The supreme courts decision had nothing to do with my question. Interracial marriage was made legal despite the majority vote. Why are you ok with it then and not now. DOMA doesnt negate any of my questions either. This is still the majority stripping a right from the minority and you have yet to answer why that is acceptable. State rights are fine but come second to Federal and Constitutional law. The 14th amendment says equal rights are guaranteed and marriage is a right. End of story. You say "its the law of our land" but youre wrong. The Constitution is the law of the land and DOMA, quite frankly, violates it on numerous levels as does your claim that the majority gets to deny rights to the minority. Theres a reason youre flat out refusing to answer the questions Im posing to you. I wonder if you know what it is. Zynome: " legalizing drugs, murder, prostitution?" Its really sad that you compare consenting adults to violent or dangerous acts. It says a great deal about you though. Come back when you can make a valid comparison. "Where does it start and where does it stop?" Your right to swing your fist ends where the next persons face begins. Your rights go as far as to where the next persons begin. "If we dont set limits and stick to them then there will be chaos." Setting arbitrary limits that violate our own laws for no reason is just as chaotic child. ". Majority rules, plain and simple" Not in the US it doesnt. Go take a poli-sci class. Tyranny of the majority isnt law here. "If the minority dont like it, move" And youre going to pay for that move? US law demands equal rights under it. Simple as that. Saying the minority doesnt get those rights is a blatant violation of the Constitution. You very clearly dont comprehend the laws of your own land if you think majority rule trumps minority rights.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 08:55:27
Im pro-rights. I think that so long as people arent hurting themselves, or others or detrimentally effecting society they should be free to carry on and live their lives to the fullest in any way that they choose. I cant understand people who are anti-marriage equality, anti-rights, pro-making life decisions for other people. To me thats all this is, who am I to say that a group of people cannot marry because they are of a different sexual orientation than I am? Who am I to say that a Lesbian shouldnt have the right to make medical choices for her life-partner, wife... I think people get far too caught up in the grand moral overtures, the biblical implication, and whatever else it is that tells you its okay to spew such hate. However, when I think about the practical every-day consequences of this vote, the rights we would be STRIPPING because in Maine they have the right and people would seek to TAKE IT AWAY, it makes it all the more pressing that we all go out Saturday and do our best to remind people to vote. If they can take rights away from one group, they can take them away from us all...I think that is the more terrifying point to make. Whether or not you morally agree with gay-marriage (tho, I subscribe to the "Dont want a gay-marriage? Then dont get one and shut the eff up" camp) this vote and the vote in California and the votes that will begin happening everywhere set a scary precedent. When my fundamental rights as a human being, the right choose who I love and how I express that love and whether or not our love is protected and celebrated by the government in the way that heterosexual love is, I become afraid for all rights.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 14:04:04
I am so excited for Wrock for Equality. I think that it is so important that gay people have the same rights as straight people. They are no different and it is not fair that they are treated as less than human. Who cares who you love? Who cares who you date or marry? This should NEVER be an issue. Ignorance and intolerance is just disgusting to me. I dont understand how people can have so much disdain in their hearts. I mean everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone should also be entitled to the same rights no matter what.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 14:16:26
xparawhorextwerdx - sorry to hear about that :(. Anyway, this is why religion and politics should NEVER mix: people get way too emotional. Im not American, but would I be right to say it focuses on religion alot? Or in prinicple? Cause gay marriage is legal here in the UK and this country couldnt be more secular if it tried- that Creation film you guys banned was shown here willy-nilly. I personally dont have a problem with gay marriage, simply because I wasnt brought up in a Christian home, but now, as a practising Adventist, if someone asked me what God says about GM Id have to tell them the truth (btw, Seventh-Day-Adventists DO follow the Old Testament, that is, we dont eat shell-fish, pork, etc. Of course some things cant apply to 21st Century Western society, Deuteronomy, anyone?) but what I dont agree with is people pushing their beliefs onto others. What I hate more is this whole pick and choose habit so many Christians have: Homosexuality is wrong, but I know, I know, I have the occasional cigarette. I drink sometimes too. I lied yesterday, but all you have to do is pray for forgiveness for that one. Please- sin is sin, and were all guilty of it. Some of us need to look at our own lives instead of spouting hyperbolic, self-righteous custard (lol).
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 16:03:11
Trunkstheslayer-"interrac ial marriage was made legal by the Supreme Court despite the majority vote" - that was what *I* said.
I am not dodging. Youre asking why its okay for me in one situation and not the other and Im responding that the situations are not the same. We have to act within the legal frameworks that we are given, like it or not. Right now the states have the decision.
If you sense I am dodging anything maybe its because I havent actually given my "opinion" about gay marriage? Well, that is irrelevant to what I initially posted. >> That the people in Maine have a right to decide what is right for their state. Dont worry, they are pretty liberal up there. Proposition One will probably fail.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 19:12:23
Fourfan. How are they not the same? Because one was never put back up for the ballot? Youre saying that now, the majority should get to decide. Why do you feel that the same cant be said for the past? Why was it ok for a handful of judges to nullify that opinion? And do you honestly think the majority opinion trumps those rights now, when it didnt before? You still arent answering why you think the majority gets to decide the minoritys rights. Ive asked that each time and you havent answered to any true extent. Saying "Maine gets to decide for itself" doesnt actually explain how tyranny of the majority is justified or why the majority gets to, quite literally, strip equality from the minority. Thats the point Im making; this isnt just a states rights issue. This is a group being told flat out their rights are only theirs if the majority says so despite the US Constitution guaranteeing those rights to them. You understand why thats so deeply unsettling, dont you?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 19:59:10
Always nice to see some healthy debate. Regardless of what your opinion is on the matter, I much prefer a thoughtout arguement to a insult-and-shout arguement. :)
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 19:59:40
Always nice to see some healthy debate. Regardless of what your opinion is on the matter, I much prefer a thoughtout arguement to a insult-and-shout arguement. :)
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 21:49:28
Ive noticed that a lot of people say how church and state should be separate and thats how people should base their views, but I feel the need to point out something painfully obvious: ITS NOT. I agree that it should be separate though, before Im flamed for this. This occurs throughout the history of the U.S. and is still continuing today. Though they say it, its not. Religion has always been an underlying factor for people (and that probably wont change hugely). Religion helps "shape" SOME peoples thoughts/views/etc and so some people (not all) are swayed, especially with issues like gay marriage which is a religious issue as well as political. It should be taken into account.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 23:05:01
First off, love the debate. I think a lot of valid points have been made on all sides. So let me add some food for thought:
To expound on lifeisgoodwithHPs comment, more than a few people have brought up this whole "wall of separation between church and state" issue. First of all, that phrase is often misued. Its not part of our constitution. It orginated in a personal correspondence that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Conneticut and the phrase refers to the establishment clause in the constitution-- that is that the government cannot impose a state religion. This phrase was never meant to imply that religion should have no inlfuence upon the government (which a lot of people now argue is the case), but rather that the government should have intereference with the establishment and practice of religions in the country. As is was previously pointed out, religion shapes and inlfuences the way a lot of people see the world, ergo shaping and influencing their political positions.
Now, not being from Maine, I dont know exactly what Prop 1 entails, but to the best of my knowledge it highly resembles Californias Prop 8 from last years election. I know in the case of Prop 8, had it not been ratified, it would have restricted religious freedom in California. Churches that dont support same-sex marriages would have been required perform them at risk of law suits. Religious adoption agencies would have been forced to allow homosexual couples to adopt, despite their beliefs, at risk of being shut down by the state. Perhaps you think its okay for the government to interfere with religious institutions that way, but I do not.
I have read over and over again in this debate that this issue has nothing to do with religion, but religion is such an intergral part of what many believe and why they believe it that this issue is irrevocably tied with religion. At this point in time, we cant separate the two.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 23:26:53
(Please forgive my loquaciousness. Im an English major and it takes me three hundred words to say what most people can say in six.) I thinks its fundamentally important for people to stand up for what they believe in--especially if it goes against popular opinion. Right now, many religious denominations are in this position becuase of their stance against same-sex marriages. Noted author and legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance this way:
"There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . .
For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening." All matters aside in this debate, I honestly believe that both sides of the argument need to be aware of any bigotry they may be perpetuating. Its ugly, its disgusting, and its vile. Those of you who dont believe that religious denominations arent dealing with persecution because of this matter need to take a closer look at things. After the Prop 8 debate in CA, buildings of worship were vandalized, bricks and pumpkins were thrown through car windows of cars bearing "Support Prop 8" stickers, people faced persecution in the work place because of how they voted. Im not saying that those who support heterosexual marriage arent just as guilty, but I feel that the civil rights this country was founded on--freedom of speech and religion--need to be advocated and protection depsite what issue is on the ballot.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-19 23:26:59
talleysk, That is nothing but absolute nonsense and fear-mongering. The legalization of equal civil marriage in any state DOES NOTHING to churches in any way whatsoever. I do not know where you are getting your blatantly incorrect information from, but I urge you to actually research the issue before you spread misinformation. Proposition H8 did absolutely nothing but strip away legal civil rights from gay couples in the state of California. During the period in which equal marriage was legal, not one single church was forced to perform ceremonies for gay couples. THIS. IS. A. FACT. The state does not dictate to churches who they can or cannot perform ceremonies for, gay or straight. That is completely up to religious organizations. Churches all across the United States turn couples away all the time for various reasons (pre-marital sex, children out of wedlock, living situations prior to marriage, etc.). Some churches do choose to perform ceremonies for gay couples, but NOT ONE SINGLE church has EVER been forced to perform marriage ceremonies that they do not agree with. This is a completely civil matter that has everything to do with the state, and nothing whatsoever to do with the church, and anyone who has actually educated themselves on the issue is well aware of this. I can tolerate people who do not necessarily support equality for whatever reasons, but I cannot sit back and tolerate people who spread obvious lies and misinformation.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 01:17:12
As legislation stood in CA before Prop 8, there was nothing interfering with church matters at the time, but had Prop 8 been voted down, then churches would have been impacted. PLease do not accuse me of spreading "lies and misinformation" when you obviously are no better informed.
No matter how hard you try to deny it, the institution of religion is under attack just as much as everything else in this country. And I cannot sit back as people perpetuate half-truths and deny what they dont want to see.
I wont deny that both parties are just as guilty of this; all Im saying is that everyone involved needs to be sure that the civil rights and liberties this country was founded on arent buried under and trampled upon by national secularism.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 01:47:02
Im new here! Just discovered/started to care about Harry Potter and its fandom. And what a discover!!!)
(where have I been?!)
Anyone with an opinion about anything thinks that their opinion is right.
And they wont change their opinion just because the law say you cant have an opinion about it.
Say, gender or race- is against the law, but it doesnt stop people from being racists or being sexists. you can go on and on.
State and religion is parted because you should be able to have an opinion about believing in a god or not, still youll meet people who tries to tell you what or what you cant believe in.
The same about homosexulality, I have my opinion-(Im not religious, I may be sexist sometimes.) So Im not against gay being married, its not my life and I dont care what or who another person or relative is doing.) So let them get married if they want to
But I also understand that some people are and will continue being against it for whatever reasons. And its OK. But we need to ask ourselves which opinion should be strong enough for law to change or not.
(Im sorry for spelling/grammar misstake-Im dyslectic so I dont always see that when I write.)
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 07:53:38
You are spreading lies and misinformation. Churches are not under sttack, you are simply fear-mongering. I dare you to name ONE instance in which the government has ever FORCED a church to perform a ceremony against the churchs will. I guarantee you that you will not find one. Grow up.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 09:50:48
Boston Catholic Charities closed down in 2006 because of controversy of being letting same sex couples adopt. Had they continued to stay open, the would have lost state liscence to operate, and even without state liscence (as a privately run charity foundation) they would have been required to let same sex couples adopt. There was an article called "Banned in Boston" in the Weekly Standard about it in May 2006. Look it up. Similarly, Jonathan Turley,
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 11:37:17
Talley, dont tell others to do your homework for you. Find proof for your claim. Any group that receives state funding is held by secular law. End of story. If they were purely private, religiously based then you are wrong; they would have, at worst, FACED a lawsuit but they would have won it easily. Additionally, no church has to wed ANY couple; EVER. Saying that a church would face threat of legal action was a common scare-tactic used in the Prop 8 fight but it is a 100% lie. No church can be forced to wed a couple in this country, for ANY reason.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 11:43:48
Forgot to add this part: About "Religions are facing bigotry". Bull. Show me a statistic that shows how badly Christians are being oppressed. I dare you. Now compare that stat with how many gays are killed by Christians". Notice a STARK difference? The persecution complex that some wannabe-Christians use and abuse is ridiculous. Their claim of "oppression" post Prop 8? Sternly worded, or angry LETTERS. And guess what? They never managed to actually show any of those letters. At all. I wont deny theres violence, and that its wrong, but to say theres an upswing of "Anti-Christian" violence in this nation, especially in comparison to what those wannabe-Christians do to other groups, is absolutely ridiculous. (Point: "wannabe" is used because Im fully aware that these gits are NOT Christians, no matter how much they want to pretend otherwise)
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 12:24:06
First of all, my homework was done by myself, so I dont know what youre talking about. The Jonathan Turely article I was referring to (and was cut off apparently) talks about the loss of tax exemption that non-profit organizations face with the legalization of same-sex marriages. Its called "An Unholy Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Use of Governmental Programs to Penalize Religious Groups with Unpopular Practices." Turely, for your information, happens to support gay marriage, but even he can see the consequences that non-profit religious organizations would face. To quote Chai Feldblum, a law professor at Georgetown, a civil and gay rights activist, and an Orthodox Jew, "When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay man and lesbians." Most of the time, she argues, the need to protect the dignity of gay people will justify the burdening of religious belief. But that does not make it right to pretend these burdens do not exist in the first place, or that the religious people the law is burdening dont matter.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 12:48:00
Second of all, my argument was never intended to be just about Christians. Other conservative religious groups are facing the same problem. Not to mention, I didnt use the term "oppression" in my argument at all. I dont claim that religious groups are being oppressed, I claim that they are facing bigotry and persecution. No, theyre not being killed. Im not an idiot, and I wont pretend thats happening. But violence is taking place in this country against religious minorities. The "No Mob Veto" ad in The New York Times discusses the violence the Mormon church has faced because of their support of Prop 8 and is a call from an assortment of religious leaders to end this violence. Third, Im not trying to say that, in our current circumstances, religious groups in America face the kind of persecuation that gay rights activists are facing. But I cant deny that we may very well be headed that direction. Finally, for the record, I support extending the rights and benefits regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights to same-sex couples so long as they dont infringe upon the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference. If those liberties and rights can be extended fairly to both parties without conflict, then thats all good and well, but as it stands, I dont think thats the case and will continue to uphold my opinions and religious beliefs regardless of how "bigotted" the rest of the world thinks they are.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 13:43:57
Yes, these liberties and rights can be extended to gay couples, not just the ones that you have listed, but ALL of the legal rights and benefits that come with a civil marriage contract, without infringing upon any religious freedoms. End of story. First of all, as Trunk has already stated, no church ever has to perform marriage ceremonies that they disapprove of. We know this. Secondly (again, as Trunk has already stated), non-for profit organizations can do whatever they dang well please when it comes to issues such as adoption. Agencies that are state-funded, on the other hand, have no choice in the matter, as they are paid for by the taxpayers (which include gay citizens, I might add. Gay people should not be discriminated against by a system that they pour their own money into in the first place). Thirdly, when we pass a law that says you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, it means just that. You may not hire or fire somebody simply based on the fact that they are gay, as it does not affect their ability to function in the workplace. I would like to add that, similarly, it is already a federal crime to discriminate based on religion, as well. Anti-discrimination laws do not infringe upon religious freedom, as you have the right to think or say whatever you want about these people. Nobody should have to worry about whether or not they are going to lose their job if their boss finds out about their relationship at home. Their sexual orientation does not affect you, so unless they start having gay sex on top of the copy machine, finding out that they are gay is not a valid reason to rob them of their income. Similarly, disagreeing with an employees religious beliefs is also not a valid reason to rob them of their income, either. Lastly, how dare you accuse a loving gay couple, many of whom raise children in safe, healthy environments, of "infringing upon the integrity of the family."
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 13:49:15
There is more than one type of family out there, and unless they burst into your local church in leather buttless chaps, screaming "Were gay! Were gay!", theyre really none of your business.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 14:13:31
It is an intrinsic and fundamental belief of my religion that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony and to be raised by a mother and father who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. As such, I believe that same-sex marriage is a violation of the integrity of family. Those are my beliefs, and I will defend and uphold them. Non-profit oganizations that are not state funded, but are tax exempt, would be in risk of losing their tax exemptions, which will inveitably put them out of commission. Non-profit organizations are dependent upon those tax to operate. Marc Stern, a general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, says this about the threat to free exercise of religion being dismissed as evenfelical hysteria:"Its not hysteria, this is very real. Boston Catholic Charities shows that." By and large, the whole matter can objectively seen as this: based on Federalist 10 written by James Madison at the start of our nation, because of the very physical set up of our country and our government, enlightened factions and ideas will be perpetuated. By this principle, if this issue is as enlightened as you claim, then regardless of what arguments anyone will make, eventually the American people will agree. It may take a few years, but thats how it stands. In the meantime, Ill hold to the principles that I believe to be true and moral, and youll do the same. Thats really all there is to it.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 14:28:28
"It is an intrinsic and fundamental belief of my religion that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony and to be raised by a mother and father who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. As such, I believe that same-sex marriage is a violation of the integrity of family. Those are my beliefs, and I will defend and uphold them." By all means, believe what you want. I can respect that. But you have no right to force those beliefs on other people through the law, which is exactly what the foes of equal marriage try to do. In effect, it doesnt matter what you believe, because this isnt about religious marriage at all. You keep your religious marriages in your churches, and the rest of us will keep our civil marriages out of your churches. Thats the bottom line. Atheist couples who are legally married have not infiltrated your churches, obstructed or disrupted your religious practices, or violated your right to privacy. The same will hold true for gay couples once they win their rights.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 14:35:06
But the fact that I believe in the divine insititution of heterosexual marriages leads to the fact that I am going to vote in conjunction with my beliefs. Im going to advocate laws and admendements that support my beliefs, not laws that go against what I believe to be right.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 14:45:01
Vote however you want, Im not stopping you. I just think youre very, very wrong to try to force other people to adhere to your religious beliefs by using the legal system. Start a petition to ban divorce, while youre at it, though, otherwise you would just be a downright hypocrite. And try to ban atheists from obtaining civil marriage licenses. The same goes for banning any form of single-parenthood. And start a law that requires a couple to produce offspring within a set period of time, or else their marriage shall be annulled. And, of course, any form of birth control ought to be outlawed, since it clearly goes against Christian beliefs.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 14:55:23
I would appreciate if you didnt make assumptions about my beliefs. I support the use of birth control within marriage, and I believe that divorce is sometimes necessary for the health and safety of those involved. I understand that some couples suffer from infertility, and I know what a source of grief it is to those who have to deal with it. There is a difference between using the legal system to define what marriage is and using it to interfere with the personal lives of married couples.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 15:41:01
Tally, what youre saying is that subjective morality ranks higher than human rights. What if my morals demand women/blacks be subservient? The laws are burdening me, in your own words. That is idiocy. Not legitimizing bigotry isnt an unconstitutional burden Otherwise LGBT community comes second class to the religious one. The 1st amendment doesnt trump the 14th and, no, SSM doesnt impede ANYONES religious life. You are talking about groups that get gov. funding.This isnt strict religion but group that gets funds from the government which means that YES they are subject to the law in order to get that funding. Private groups arent held to that. Whats a bigger burden? Accepting a group you dont like exists or being denied equal human rights and protections? As for your second: I never saw any proof of violence committed in response to Prop 8. "so long as they dont infringe upon the integrity of the family" Please explain how they would. Im intrigued as to why youd mention family as if to say that GLBT families are something else. "the rights of churches" Done this. Churches dont have to wed anyone they dont want. "followers to practice their religion free from government interference." The church isnt hurt here. Ones rights only carry until the next persons are begin. Thats how the law works (hence no virgin sacrifice). Using morals to justify bigotry in the workplace/housing isnt the same. "Gays sin" doesnt let you get to fire them. "If those rights can be given fairly to both parties without conflict, then fine, but I dont think thats the case and will continue to uphold my opinions and religious beliefs regardless of how "bigotted" the rest of the world thinks they are." Its sad that you repeatedly ignore law in order to make a conflict where it doesnt exist. The middle ground is this: Marriage can be done legally. Why are you ignoring the churches that want, but are legally unable, to wed gay couples? What about their religious rights?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 15:50:05
"Those are my beliefs, and I will defend and uphold them." Even if it means violating the Constitution that you demand we uphold? Dont turn this into "Well my morals say this". Your morality, nor mine, are relevant in this. We are talking law. And only law. Your religion is NOT touched by this and you know it. What you dont get is this: Nobody is telling you to change your beliefs. Youre welcomed to them but when you start applying those beliefs in such a way that you are forcing them on a group of people, and denying them equal rights, you cross the line from belief into action. Do you honestly feel your religion should be applied to people who believe differently? Especially when it means denying them their rights, despite those rights not actually effecting you (no matter how much you plead otherwise, the law doesnt support your claim). By the way? How bout you give a source to back your claims once in awhile? "So and so says this" doesnt make them right. And by the way? Tax exemptions are, in essence, gov. funding indirectly. By voting the way you claim, you are in fact hurting people. THAT is an incontestable violation of almost all religions. Why are you ok with that? By the way? Using the legal system to define marriage IS interfering with married couples. Its flat out telling many married couples that they ARENT that. And for the record, I hate this character limit like you cant believe. It makes these responses awkward and choppy to fit! x.x
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 16:12:16
Tally, whether it was your intention or not (and Ill assume not) theres something in your post that needs addressing: "Integrity of the family". That right there is the crux of this issue and you basically said it flat out. In your eyes, a gay couple with children arent a family because they dont fit your definition. But they are. They ARE a family by all objective definitions. If they arent, then neither are those with adopted children, with step-(father/sister/daugh ter/son/mother/etc). This ENTIRE issue is about families, and no, not straight/nuclear/traditio nal ones. Those exist and will always exist and are not touched by this. By voting away these rights, you are telling people they arent families; they arent worthy of equal rights; they dont deserve the things you have. Intentionally or not, that is whats being said. Now imagine saying that to a child. Imagine telling them that because the parents they love are both men, they dont deserve to be a family. Do you understand why thats so twisted?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 17:15:37
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 18:55:06
Trunkstheslayer: Here are a few links of violence against those in support of Californias Prop 8 if you care to see the proof.
- http://www.worldmag.com/w ebextra/14613
-http://ww w.christianexaminer.com/A rticles/Articles%20Dec08/ Art_Dec08_09.html
-http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v =hcKJEHrvwDI&NR=1
-http: //abclocal.go.com/kgo/sto ry?section=news/local/san _francisco&id=6584961
To name a few. There was violence on both sides though.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 19:08:46
What part of the Constitution are some of you referring to? I see it brought up in some of the posts re. this discussion but wonder what part you think refers to gay marriage.
The Declaration of Independence is where you find "All Men are created equal" "unalienable Rights...Pursuit of Happiness" etc. It goes on to discuss the establishment of governments (just powers from the *consent* of the governed) to ensure that this Pursuit of Happiness can happen and warns not to change things for "light and transient Causes". I think that is what this country, state by state, is deciding on now. Dont get so caught up in the rights of the minority that you forget that voters also have rights, and those minorities are also voters.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 19:35:54
Zynome: Post got eaten. Long story short, read them. Unsurprised but good to see documentation from at least one non-biased source (though a couple of them werent exactly subtle). There are idiots on both sides honestly and frankly, the ones on my own psst me off far more than anyone else. Fourfan, stop ignoring simple facts just because they are inconvenient to you. Nobody is denying voters any rights. They still dont get to strip rights from the minority. You have the right to vote. Doesnt mean you get to vote on everything and it most assuredly doesnt mean you get to vote to tell one group you arent as good as them. The 9th and 14th amendments are the most relevant here. The latter guarantees equal rights. The former makes it clear that rights exist that arent listed in the Constitution. The supreme court has ruled that marriage is a legal right. Therefore it cannot be denied to LGBT persons simply based on the sex of the people involved. As for "light or transient causes", youve already made it clear that even you feel that peoples rights (those of the religious in your case) are neither light, nor transient, so thats null. This is neither case. Deny it up and down all you like but marriage is a legal right. Equal rights are a requirement under the Law of the Land. Thats as far as this needs to go. (By the way, thank you for, again, ignoring most of the questions posed to you) Shall I assume that those answers are on their way and Im merely responding prematurely?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 19:44:03
Its interesting to note that a few people on here have been saying that marriage is a right. When in fact it is a priviledge. The reason I say that is because there are restrictions on who can marry and who can not. For example, the requirements right now as far as the country as a whole goes is as follows: 1. Man and woman 2. You may only be married to one spouse 3. Family relationship to both spouses and not be closer than third cousin 4. 18 years of age or older without parental consent 5. Be of sound mind 5. Both partners have to be willing. Now, if marriage was a right then all of these requirements should be null and void and those that are incarcenated would be denied to the right to be married. I await the responses.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 20:00:15
Zynome, youre wrong. Loving V. Virginia deemed marriage a legal right under US law. Supreme Court decisions, until new law arises, are on par with the Constitution as far as legal precedent. As to your points; 1-Only in certain states. Some states prove you wrong here. 2-Doesnt make it less of a right. Marriage to a single-spouse is still marriage. 3-That varies too, actually and theres reason to it. It isnt just an arbitrary distinction and, oddly, doesnt make this a privilege. 4-Given. Minors have no legal stance, nor the ability to legally consent. They essentially have minimalized rights to begin with. Again, doesnt make marriage not a right. 5-Same as previous basically. Other 5-Still the same. Having the requirement of consent, given that marriage is essentially a contract, doesnt mean this is not a right. How youre getting that thought is...well, confusing. Nothing you said, in even a small fashion, proves marriage isnt a right. If it werent, then you wouldnt even need those reasons to be denied it. You have a right to vote but you still have to be 18 after all but that doesnt make it less of a right. Just because you have to meet certain points doesnt mean something is a privilege rather than a right. Those limitations however need a reason to exist. Age of consent of course makes for a valid reason. Intermarriage has raised risk of birth defects (oddly, not as high as most people think though if the pair is single-generation). Being incarcerated doesnt strip you of all of your rights. Some, but not all. No idea where you got that impression.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 20:18:01
Anyone else notice we got way, way off the beaten path as far as the topics concerned? o.0
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 20:41:24
I just have to say Im tired of seeing gay marriage compared to interracial marriage. Being gay is NOT the same as being a minority race, and Id think minority races should be pretty offended to see that.
Another thing, people keep talking about the rights of minorities, but federally speaking, gays dont have minority status, so...
And lastly, I honestly dont care a whole lot whether or not gays can get married, but I think it should be illegal for them to adopt. And before I get attacked and called horrible, heres why: As someone who was raised by a single father, I KNOW how important it is to have a FATHER and MOTHER. Not a mother and a mother, or a father and a father. Each parent has a unique and important place in the raising of a child, and that is utterly inarguable. There is no substitute for it.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 21:24:58
Flick, comparisons and equations arent the same thing. Nobody is saying race and SO are the same. Interracial marriage and SSM as an issue though are extremely similar if you look at their respective contexts and arguments. As for races being offended, funny, Corretta(sp) King (MLKs wife) said flat out the civil rights and gay rights movements are deeply similar. Go figure. As for minority status...you do know what minority means right? And youre dead wrong on parenting. Youre comparing ONE parent against two. It is a PROVEN FACT that the kids of same-sex couples are the same as those raised by hetero couples, and thats coming directly from the American Psychological Association and the Pediatrics equivalent. So no, you dont "know", you arbitrarily believe based on your own limited experience. Just because you say it is inarguable, doesnt make it such. The research proves you wrong, simple as that. Your personal experience has no impact on this. A single father is not comparable to two parents, regardless of sex. As for your gender-role based argument, get over it. Gender roles are socially made and no, you dont need one of each to develop. I really cant get over how arrogant you are to think that your experience, one that is entirely different from the one in question, is proof of your claim. By your logic, SINGLE MEN shouldnt be allowed to adopt. THAT would be the area your experience holds relevance. I...seriously, Im just floored by how arrogant of a post that was. Saying you know something that flies in the face of the research, just because you experienced something totally unrelated just...how does that make sense?! So tell me, why should I trust you over research studies on the matter and psychological fact?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-20 21:30:15
Marriage should be a contract between adults, period. There is no need for state involvement other than its obligation to respect and protect contract law. It should be nobody elses business as to what adults voluntarily do; adult and voluntary being the core here. That way, nobody is imposing their viewpoint upon anybody else.
Having said that, wake up, you silly Americans! Calling on HP fans "from all around the world" for support of an internal issue?
When are you going to realise that there is a "rest of the world" outside your borders?
Sheesh!
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-22 13:28:58
@flickofthewrist: Im truly sorry that your mom was not a part of your life when you were growing up. Like you, I know from experience that its a hard and painful thing to long for guidance from a parent who isnt there to provide it. However, considering the vast differences in personality and behavior between people of any one sex, I find it improbable that two involved, proactive parents will be detrimental to a child simply because they are of the same sex.
@Suzy: If you are offended by the behavior of a specific individual, it would be appropriate to voice your concerns to that person. However, to paint *all* Americans with a single brush is inaccurate, unfair, and inflammatory. Also, many Americans are aware of, and actively working on behalf of, other nations. In fact, thats part of what the HPA does. We work for social justice, and we dont let arbitrary borders stop us from giving or receiving help. Im proud of that.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-23 08:50:43
I dont care at all what the freaking research says. Growing up, I had an incredible father, and plenty of other strong father figures in my life. But nothing, NOTHING, made up for the fact that I did not have a mother. I didnt have an example of how men and women interact with each other as adults and how they form relationships. So, what does it matter if gay peoples children dont have that? As long as their kids are gay too!
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-23 09:40:38
So flick, you never went outside? Never saw any people other than your father? You REALLY didnt see men and women interact? And you really are that naive as to think men and women are that vastly different that you need a whole different method of interacting with each one? "I dont care about the research", Im not shocked. Youve made it painfully clear you have no interest in being objective about this. Your experience must be treated as though it is universal and forget the fact that the reality is quite different. Sorry kid but just because you SAY it was because you didnt have a mother, doesnt prove that fact. You have no idea how youd have turned out with a mother as opposed to without. Oh, and are you for banning single parents as well? Or is this just a cute little double-standard youve got? As for your last sentence, I wont bother touching on in any depth. Suffice to say theres not much out there that you could have said that would paint you as more immature than that particular bit of BS.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-23 12:56:56
flickofthewrist, I presume that your last sentence is fueled by your distress that children of male same-sex parents would, like you, lack a mother. Again, it is a great loss that your mother was not part of your growing up, and it is compassionate of you to want to spare others from a similar fate. But children raised by same-sex parents arent experiencing loss: theyre part of a whole family. Your loss is part of your personal story, and it is a disservice to same-sex parents and their children if you project your experience onto them. Also, when lashing out with barbs like your last two sentences, please take a moment to consider the people who will be reading your comments. As a bisexual future parent, I am hurt by the accusation that I would attempt to influence my childrens sexual orientations because I am not heterosexual. Like any other good parent, I will support my children as they grow into whatever sexuality they are born to. Additionally, having had relationships with both men and women, I can say with confidence that the sex of the people involved doesnt determine how they should behave toward one another. Any healthy relationship is founded on mutual respect, friendship, and deep affection. My opposite-sex parents showed me that, but I could have learned it just as easily from same-sex parents, or from relatives, or from friends, or... you get the idea.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-23 16:10:04
All personal aspects aside, for the last several million years, heterosexual couples have been raising children. (And of course Im speaking in generalizations because I know there are exceptions.) But for the vast majority, children were raised by heterosexual couples, and now, homosexual couples have been raising children, for, what 2 or three decades, and you say its just as good, and you expect me to say, "Oh, yeah, youre right"?
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-23 18:21:34
Same-sex parenting has repeatedly been shown to be as healthy for children as opposite-sex parenting. I dont expect you or anyone else to take this statement on faith; it is backed up by empirical evidence. Some useful links to statistics include http://www.apa.org/pi/lgb c/publications/lgpsummary .html and http://gaylife.about.com/ od/gayparentingadoption/a /gayadoptionstat.htm. The APA website in particular is of interest because that organization has no reason to support or decry same-sex parenting: their research was born of a desire to know the truth. Personally, I find it painful and depressing that my ability to parent, and eligibility to adopt, is only called into question when I am dating someone of the same sex. I am either capable of raising children, or not; my current opposite-sex partner does not magically render me eligible. Also, *any* parents have a responsibility to provide role models for their children outside of their family--that is not a task that only befalls same-sex parents. No two people can ever represent all of the talents and worldviews that children could benefit from as they grow.
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-23 19:13:53
Im not questioning homosexuals (or in your case bisexual) ability to parent, or their love of the child, or their desire to raise it in a caring and safe environment. What worries me is the potential of innate emotional and psychological underdevelopment brought on by not having the balancing of an opposite-sex parentage. Im not one for asserting gender roles (as Trunktheslayer earlier implied) but when it comes to parenting, I do believe that there is a fundamental difference when it comes to the roles of mothers and fathers. They are both very different and very important, and I just fear that a gay man could not replace a mother and a lesbian woman could not take the place of a father. It has nothing to do with their sexuality in itself. I dont think the sexuality of a parent necessarily has an effect on a child, in this case or any other, say, a child having a promiscuous mother. I just cant see that women and men, despite their love and best intentions, have the ability to take on the roles opposite of their gender, in parenting. And I want to thank you, Fuschia, for being so respectful and polite in your responses. (Even when I wasnt and I apologize for coming off so harshly. This is my last.)
|
Posted by: - Posted on: 2009-10-24 13:05:58
"or the last several million years, heterosexual couples have been raising children" Actually, more often than that they were raised by, basically, entire villages. So your point falls flat. It wasnt a two-parent household scenario in the slightest. And once again, ignoring research doesnt make your point justified. It makes it knowingly ignorant. The research stands. "there is a fundamental difference when it comes to the roles of mothers and fathers. " So...how is that NOT you believing in gender roles? I mean, its literally saying "one sex does this, the other does that", which you literally end up saying further into your post. Id like to see ANY trait be found that is exclusive to one sex over the other when it comes to mental/emotional ability. I find it a tad insulting that you call me out for implying that youre harping on gender roles when thats exactly what youre doing, even when you know theyre crap.
|
| You must be logged in to post your comment. |
| |
|
|
|
|
Loading...
.jpg "LEGO Harry Potter"){kind=small}
