Not with regards to the law, it isn't. If it were, then a heterosexual couple who were not theists would not be married, they'd be in a civil union.
I'm not trying to say that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be joined. I'm arguing against the definition, and how it impedes on those who have religious beliefs that can't abide by it. Trust me, it's amazing to me that I'm doing this to when a couple years ago I would have been siding with you on this issue completely. There is no reason for the movement of "I am gay so I must have what christian's (Or literally virtually any other religion, for that matter) call marriage" other than the need to force their sexuality or beliefs onto people who reject it. Again, I am not religious and my sexuality is not straight, and I see this as a wrong. This is an opinion on both sides.
The majority of Christians in America support gay marriage, so those who go against it are impeding on the religious freedom of other Christians, including gay Christians who believe that they can indeed marry. Why is the opinion of those who don't support it and want to restrict this freedom win over those who simply want that freedom, just because the first group doesn't agree with it? Here's an example, why shouldn't the Jews be allowed to marry gays because people from a different religion think they shouldn't be?
As Highroller already pointed out, racists had the exact same argument and you are impeding on their 'religious freedom'.
'Blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry because it's against god and to exercise this belief is my religious freedom. They can still have civil unions though because that's the same thing right?'
'Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it's against god and to exercise this belief is my religious freedom. They can still have civil unions though because that's the same thing right?'
Spot the difference. One you support, the other, you deny. Would you please provide a reason for this?
I'm not saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. What I've been advocating is that if someone, based on their beliefs, should REJECT the concept of it, if we're going to be a free country that their stance should be upheld and protected. There is absolutely no reason a gay couple can't go to a court house and become married.
Why does it have to be in a church? Why, if gay people believe that religion is impeding on their liberties would they even WANT to get married in a Christian church?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
Ah, my apologies. I hadn't reloaded the page when I made that post.
And I agree that groups attempting to stifle the speech of others is wrong, with the caveat that when the group is in session or if there's a designated area for "at risk" students that they should have the right to eject those they deem disruptive.
However, I addressed this when I made my original post. The people that use safe spaces as an excuse to shut down conversations throughout campus are very rare and tend to only be a big deal because south park ran an episode about it, which is where many people take their political opinions. They then use these caricatures and outright fabrications as excuses to attack more vulnerable members of society.
Besides, religious groups restricting marriage based on their values is essentially them
forcing their... beliefs onto people who reject it.
And the same can be said in reverse so what is your point? Unless you're a homosexual christian I'm not sure why you're even arguing this.
Exactly, which means that the reasoning is bunk to begin with.
My point is that you seem to be arguing that religious groups should be allowed to deny citizens the right to a secular, government ran institution (and a fundamental right according to the Supreme Court) based on their religious beliefs, which is absolute nonsense.
Alcoholics Anonymous is not a college campus. It is not a college campus' job to shield people from view points that do not match their own.
Congratulations, that is a fantastically short dismissal of my example without actually addressing any of the points contained within or clarifying your position. I'm impressed.
Actually, they want them to not use the same name. Also religious people don't want the right to say no denied. Examples would be not serving pizza at a gay wedding because they view it as giving permission to sin and aiding it. That being said they would gladly serve pizza to a gay person that walked in their establishment or someone that ordered from home. This is the most common view.
Actually, they want them to not use the same name.
Assuming we're talking about marriage here, why should Christians have a stranglehold on the word "marriage" when it has been historically used to refer to secular unions between two people and also used by atheists, pagans and other such non-Christian groups?
Also religious people don't want the right to say no denied. Examples would be not serving pizza at a gay wedding because they view it as giving permission to sin and aiding it.
This issue is incredibly complicated and while I fall more on the side that they shouldn't be allowed to refuse service for a gay marriage much like they shouldn't be allowed to refuse service for an interracial marriage based on the marriage itself, I can acknowledge why there would be resistance to this.
I'm not saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. What I've been advocating is that if someone, based on their beliefs, should REJECT the concept of it, if we're going to be a free country that their stance should be upheld and protected.
So beliefs that reject the freedom of certain people should be upheld and protected in a free country? No, they shouldn't. Beliefs that infringe on the civil rights of others should not be upheld or protected.
There is absolutely no reason a gay couple can't go to a court house and become married.
You were just arguing that gay people should not be married.
Why does it have to be in a church? Why, if gay people believe that religion is impeding on their liberties would they even WANT to get married in a Christian church?
Maybe if I write this in all-caps you might actually read it: NO ONE IS FORCING CHURCHES TO MARRY GAY PEOPLE.
Ah, my apologies. I hadn't reloaded the page when I made that post.
No, I apologize. I should have been clear before I hit "post."
And I agree that groups attempting to stifle the speech of others is wrong, with the caveat that when the group is in session or if there's a designated area for "at risk" students that they should have the right to eject those they deem disruptive.
However, I addressed this when I made my original post. The people that use safe spaces as an excuse to shut down conversations throughout campus are very rare and tend to only be a big deal because south park ran an episode about it, which is where many people take their political opinions. They then use these caricatures and outright fabrications as excuses to attack more vulnerable members of society.
I'm glad we're having this discussion because the word "safe spaces" gives me a bit of revulsion because I immediately associate with those who would shut down free speech, and it's nice to be reminded that these viewpoints do not characterize the whole. I agree that Alcoholics Anonymous or LGBT groups are perfectly fine.
I cannot vouch for how rare or common the use of safe spaces to shut down opposing viewpoints is. However, it's not just a big deal because South Park made a big deal of it. I would argue it's a big deal regardless, because the issues of race and sexual orientation in this country are a big deal. Campus protests about said issues are a big deal. And when those movements end up doing exactly the thing they protest against - whether that involves trying to silence civil discourse, or just straight up being discriminatory - that's a big deal.
Actually, they want them to not use the same name.
Assuming we're talking about marriage here, why should Christians have a stranglehold on the word "marriage" when it has been historically used to refer to secular unions between two people and also used by atheists, pagans and other such non-Christian groups?
The literal definition of it is the problem. "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman". If you're a proud homosexual I can't see why you would even want to be associated with marriage. Civil unions exist to give you the same benefits as marriage already does. As I've said before, I am not straight, and still I can see the issue on the side of religion far better than the side of homosexuality. I see no reason why it has to be considered 'marriage'. I can't even comprehend why you would want that.
Anyway, I'm going to bed, Its late. I'll check back here in the morning. Goodnight all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
The literal definition of it is the problem. "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman". If you're a proud homosexual I can't see why you would even want to be associated with marriage. Civil unions exist to give you the same benefits as marriage already does. As I've said before, I am not straight, and still I can see the issue on the side of religion far better than the side of homosexuality. I see no reason why it has to be considered 'marriage'. I can't even comprehend why you would want that.
Anyway, I'm going to bed, Its late. I'll check back here in the morning. Goodnight all.
Some gay people want to be associated with marriage because they are also Christians. Several major Christian denominations happily recognize gay marriage. Who are you to tell those people that their definition of marriage is wrong, and that they should get a civil union instead?
The literal definition of it is the problem. "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman". If you're a proud homosexual I can't see why you would even want to be associated with marriage.
Language evolves and always has. Claiming that a word's definition cannot change is silly.
If you're a proud homosexual I can't see why you would even want to be associated with marriage.
Because marriage, to me, was never about a man and a woman, husband and wife. Even when I was young (before I developed any sexuality) I always saw it as a celebration of love, a declaration to the world that there's someone you care about as much as yourself. I may be a bit idealistic, but I still see marriage that way.
Civil unions exist to give you the same benefits as marriage already does.
As I stated earlier, they most certainly do not. There are countless social benefits that come with being married that are simply not replicated with a civil union. Ignoring these to focus completely on legal definitions completely misses the crux of the problem.
As I've said before, I am not straight, and still I can see the issue on the side of religion far better than the side of homosexuality.
I argue completely from the gay side, since I am gay, but I also once used to be against it. I was once a hardline Mormon, born and raised (and deeply in denial). I always saw it as the same thing. Why did gay people always complain, they could marry a woman if they wanted a marriage. They could get a civil union if they wanted visitation rights. Why did they want to broadcast their sexuality to the world?
After awhile, once I realized what I was, it became clear to me. I saw the world differently. Marriage is celebrated, a milestone for almost every person in America. What's the gameplan of the average American kid? Grow up, go to college, marry someone and get a good job. It's so ingrained in our collective psyche that marriage is something wonderful to strive for. It's everywhere, in our books, movies and music. Find someone you love, get married and live a happy life.
Humans as a whole broadcast sexuality. You can barely watch a movie without there being a love plot somewhere in there. We're bombarded day in and day out by commercials and advertisements, books and movies all containing some form of romance or sexuality. A husband buys a new Toyota for his wife, what a good husband. A girl puts on some good lipstick and gets the guy she was after, who share a tender kiss as the narrator drops the company's name. Your friend on Facebook announces that he's engaged to the girl he's been dating for months. The comments are all fawning over them, congratulating them and proclaiming how lucky they are, how happy they must be.
Gay people feel the same way as straight people. Humans love to broadcast their relationships. However, when gay people do it, it's seen as fake, fabricated. Two guys hold hands in a commercial: OMG SO MUCH PANDERING! A woman kisses her wife on the cheek as she shows her their new car: why do gay people have to shove it in their faces? A guy announces he's engaged on Facebook: I'm happy for you and all but I have to voice my opinion that gay marriage is wrong and I'm sad that you have to force it on us all the time.
By denying gay people marriage in favor of civil unions, it draws a line in the sand. Straight people's love is cool and should be celebrated. Gay people's love is only tolerated because the state is forced to by anti-discrimination laws. It's the very definition of separate but equal, that some people are inferior to others by an accident of birth. It forces them into a corner where they can't complain because hey, they have a civil union.
Now, I'm aware that you likely will not be swayed by this, and maybe I'm overly romantic, but I want to get that out there for people who aren't gay or maybe don't realize how much of a difference there is still.
Edit:
However, it's not just a big deal because South Park made a big deal of it.
True, I was being a bit flippant there. I would say that it's a big deal on the internet because of the show putting the idea in people's heads, but I fully admit that I have no real proof of that.
Campus protests about said issues are a big deal. And when those movements end up doing exactly the thing they protest against - whether that involves trying to silence civil discourse, or just straight up being discriminatory - that's a big deal.
I agree fully. Unfortunately, there is a subset of people within these groups that use them as an excuse to power trip, silencing other people and forcing their opinions on others.
I urge people to remember that the majority of safe spaces are completely benign and very beneficial to marginalized and abused groups. However, there are bad people in every group and unfortunately they give others a bad name.
So... Rubio can't even draw a crowd in his home state. I think he's done as a candidate, and can probably count the days he has left as a Senator. Why is he even in this race still? Who could possibly think that this guy would deserve the nomination if it came to the convention?
Besides, religious groups restricting marriage based on their values is essentially them
forcing their... beliefs onto people who reject it.
And the same can be said in reverse so what is your point? Unless you're a homosexual christian I'm not sure why you're even arguing this.
Exactly, which means that the reasoning is bunk to begin with.
My point is that you seem to be arguing that religious groups should be allowed to deny citizens the right to a secular, government ran institution (and a fundamental right according to the Supreme Court) based on their religious beliefs, which is absolute nonsense.
Alcoholics Anonymous is not a college campus. It is not a college campus' job to shield people from view points that do not match their own.
Congratulations, that is a fantastically short dismissal of my example without actually addressing any of the points contained within or clarifying your position. I'm impressed.
Actually, they want them to not use the same name. Also religious people don't want the right to say no denied. Examples would be not serving pizza at a gay wedding because they view it as giving permission to sin and aiding it. That being said they would gladly serve pizza to a gay person that walked in their establishment or someone that ordered from home. This is the most common view.
So should I be able to refuse to sell Pizza to people because they are black and my religion says black people are evil? Should I be able to refuse to perform an interracial wedding? What if Donald Trump being president is against my religion - should he be forced to instead call himself Prime Minister, perhaps, because it will otherwise offend me?
Spoiler: Your answer to all of those should be 'of course not, your religion needs to get over itself'
Actually, they want them to not use the same name.
Assuming we're talking about marriage here, why should Christians have a stranglehold on the word "marriage" when it has been historically used to refer to secular unions between two people and also used by atheists, pagans and other such non-Christian groups?
The literal definition of it is the problem. "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman". If you're a proud homosexual I can't see why you would even want to be associated with marriage. Civil unions exist to give you the same benefits as marriage already does. As I've said before, I am not straight, and still I can see the issue on the side of religion far better than the side of homosexuality. I see no reason why it has to be considered 'marriage'. I can't even comprehend why you would want that.
And if you don't want to get married, no one will make you. But marriage has a whole people of positive connections that literally nothing else does, even if you legally make 'civil unions' a thing. Marriage works, we have the legal framework for it, a tiny wording change and BOOM marriage!
Because marriage *used* to be defined as between people of the same race. But we all realised that was a ******* idiot idea, and changed it. Marriage *used* to be something your parents would arrange for you and you had no say in, and it was purely for trading wealth and making babies.
So... Rubio can't even draw a crowd in his home state. I think he's done as a candidate, and can probably count the days he has left as a Senator. Why is he even in this race still? Who could possibly think that this guy would deserve the nomination if it came to the convention?
More on topic!
I agree entirely. It's possible the establishment is pressuring him to stay in - not because he can win, but maybe he can bleed off votes in some proportional states in the hope of getting a contested convention.
So... Rubio can't even draw a crowd in his home state. I think he's done as a candidate, and can probably count the days he has left as a Senator. Why is he even in this race still? Who could possibly think that this guy would deserve the nomination if it came to the convention?
I don't disagree but I think waiting till Tuesday for the deathblow will be much more indicative of his future political career.
Language evolves and always has. Claiming that a word's definition cannot change is silly.
If you're a proud homosexual I can't see why you would even want to be associated with marriage.
Because marriage, to me, was never about a man and a woman, husband and wife. Even when I was young (before I developed any sexuality) I always saw it as a celebration of love, a declaration to the world that there's someone you care about as much as yourself. I may be a bit idealistic, but I still see marriage that way.
Civil unions exist to give you the same benefits as marriage already does.
As I stated earlier, they most certainly do not. There are countless social benefits that come with being married that are simply not replicated with a civil union. Ignoring these to focus completely on legal definitions completely misses the crux of the problem.
As I've said before, I am not straight, and still I can see the issue on the side of religion far better than the side of homosexuality.
I argue completely from the gay side, since I am gay, but I also once used to be against it. I was once a hardline Mormon, born and raised (and deeply in denial). I always saw it as the same thing. Why did gay people always complain, they could marry a woman if they wanted a marriage. They could get a civil union if they wanted visitation rights. Why did they want to broadcast their sexuality to the world?
After awhile, once I realized what I was, it became clear to me. I saw the world differently. Marriage is celebrated, a milestone for almost every person in America. What's the gameplan of the average American kid? Grow up, go to college, marry someone and get a good job. It's so ingrained in our collective psyche that marriage is something wonderful to strive for. It's everywhere, in our books, movies and music. Find someone you love, get married and live a happy life.
Humans as a whole broadcast sexuality. You can barely watch a movie without there being a love plot somewhere in there. We're bombarded day in and day out by commercials and advertisements, books and movies all containing some form of romance or sexuality. A husband buys a new Toyota for his wife, what a good husband. A girl puts on some good lipstick and gets the guy she was after, who share a tender kiss as the narrator drops the company's name. Your friend on Facebook announces that he's engaged to the girl he's been dating for months. The comments are all fawning over them, congratulating them and proclaiming how lucky they are, how happy they must be.
Gay people feel the same way as straight people. Humans love to broadcast their relationships. However, when gay people do it, it's seen as fake, fabricated. Two guys hold hands in a commercial: OMG SO MUCH PANDERING! A woman kisses her wife on the cheek as she shows her their new car: why do gay people have to shove it in their faces? A guy announces he's engaged on Facebook: I'm happy for you and all but I have to voice my opinion that gay marriage is wrong and I'm sad that you have to force it on us all the time.
By denying gay people marriage in favor of civil unions, it draws a line in the sand. Straight people's love is cool and should be celebrated. Gay people's love is only tolerated because the state is forced to by anti-discrimination laws. It's the very definition of separate but equal, that some people are inferior to others by an accident of birth. It forces them into a corner where they can't complain because hey, they have a civil union.
Now, I'm aware that you likely will not be swayed by this, and maybe I'm overly romantic, but I want to get that out there for people who aren't gay or maybe don't realize how much of a difference there is still.
Edit:
However, it's not just a big deal because South Park made a big deal of it.
True, I was being a bit flippant there. I would say that it's a big deal on the internet because of the show putting the idea in people's heads, but I fully admit that I have no real proof of that.
Campus protests about said issues are a big deal. And when those movements end up doing exactly the thing they protest against - whether that involves trying to silence civil discourse, or just straight up being discriminatory - that's a big deal.
I agree fully. Unfortunately, there is a subset of people within these groups that use them as an excuse to power trip, silencing other people and forcing their opinions on others.
I urge people to remember that the majority of safe spaces are completely benign and very beneficial to marginalized and abused groups. However, there are bad people in every group and unfortunately they give others a bad name.
No, that worked. That was very well said and and I never thought of it that way. Consider my view changed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
Actually, they want them to not use the same name.
Assuming we're talking about marriage here, why should Christians have a stranglehold on the word "marriage" when it has been historically used to refer to secular unions between two people and also used by atheists, pagans and other such non-Christian groups?
Also religious people don't want the right to say no denied. Examples would be not serving pizza at a gay wedding because they view it as giving permission to sin and aiding it.
This issue is incredibly complicated and while I fall more on the side that they shouldn't be allowed to refuse service for a gay marriage much like they shouldn't be allowed to refuse service for an interracial marriage based on the marriage itself, I can acknowledge why there would be resistance to this.
Because the word marriage has religious connotations. Marriage to them is not a legal class it is a religious union. You are calling that sin the same word as their prayer. Even if we both know they are not the same. Also, I am not sure the interracial comparison is fair. One is discrimination based on the actions of the person. The other is discrimination based on their physical features. These are not the same thing at all. A better example would be not serving a wedding where there is pork because eating it is against your religion.
So... Rubio can't even draw a crowd in his home state. I think he's done as a candidate, and can probably count the days he has left as a Senator. Why is he even in this race still? Who could possibly think that this guy would deserve the nomination if it came to the convention?
I don't disagree but I think waiting till Tuesday for the deathblow will be much more indicative of his future political career.
He should just drop out at do everyone a favor, including himself.
Because the word marriage has religious connotations. Marriage to them is not a legal class it is a religious union. You are calling that sin the same word as their prayer. Even if we both know they are not the same. Also, I am not sure the interracial comparison is fair. One is discrimination based on the actions of the person. The other is discrimination based on their physical features. These are not the same thing at all. A better example would be not serving a wedding where there is pork because eating it is against your religion.
If it was purely a religious agreement then you would not have to sign a legally binding contract recognized by the United States Government. The term has just as much legal weight as religious weight. The interracial comparison is very fair because you are saying the that due attributes about the marriage you do not believe it should be allowed. Well tough luck pal its not for you to decide what other people do with their lives. Again no one is stepping on anyone else's religious freedom, we are only extending that freedom to other groups for whom there is no valid reason to discriminate against.
Because the word marriage has religious connotations. Marriage to them is not a legal class it is a religious union. You are calling that sin the same word as their prayer. Even if we both know they are not the same.
It also has religious connotations to me and I am tired of them trampling my religious rights by refusing to call a same sex union a "marriage".
A better example would be not serving a wedding where there is pork because eating it is against your religion.
No, a better example would be trying to pass a constitutional amendment forbidding anybody anywhere in the country from serving pork at their wedding, even if you're not invited.
A better example would be not serving a wedding where there is pork because eating it is against your religion.
No, a better example would be trying to pass a constitutional amendment forbidding anybody anywhere in the country from serving pork at their wedding, even if you're not invited.
As to the first of course it would be. If you didn't get married under the sanctioning of a religion a devote person should not be forced to serve you.
Homosexuality is a genetic(maybe) behavior. So is murder, so is heterosexuality sex etc. We weren't talking about a constitutional amendment banning anything. You are still allowed to do what you want, I just don't have to help you do it. As for me personally I think religion is absurd(not spirituality) and am against marriage as a legal class. That being said I do think people should be allowed to express a moral opposition to things.
As to the first of course it would be. If you didn't get married under the sanctioning of a religion a devote person should not be forced to serve you.
I don't know where people keep getting the idea that there is coercion involved in this process at any level.
As to the first of course it would be. If you didn't get married under the sanctioning of a religion a devote person should not be forced to serve you.
I don't know where people keep getting the idea that there is coercion involved in this process at any level.
No, that worked. That was very well said and and I never thought of it that way. Consider my view changed.
Sometimes I feel like I ramble a bit too much and don't get my point across, so I'm glad I managed with this one. Thanks.
If you are getting fined 135k you are not being allowed to express moral opposition.
Once again, I ask: should religious people be allowed to express moral opposition to interracial marriages and refuse to serve them? Both are based on actions: two people of the same gender getting married compared to two people of different races getting married. They could have found someone of their own race, y'know.
If you offer a service to the public, you have to offer it to everyone.
That's not really true. There are plenty of reasons why a business might decline to provide services to someone (eg "No Shirt, No Shoes"). What matters is that society has decided that allowing certain reasons is detrimental to society. As such businesses are prohibited from discriminating based on race, religion, politics and now also sexual orientation.
So... Rubio can't even draw a crowd in his home state. I think he's done as a candidate, and can probably count the days he has left as a Senator. Why is he even in this race still? Who could possibly think that this guy would deserve the nomination if it came to the convention?
In fairness, Bush and Carson held out longer with worse prospects. And I'm not sure Rubio really has all that much to lose by holding out until Florida. There is about five days and a debate left to go, so it's not impossible that he might turn it around.
But yeah, Rubio shouldn't still be in the race. He's too young and inexperienced to be president.
I think if Rubio drops out, Kasich wins Ohio, and then Rubio endorses Kasich, then we'd have an interesting race. Because we'd have the Trump supporters voting Trump, the not-Trump voters who lean right voting Cruz, and the not-Trump voters who lean moderate voting Kasich, and it would be interesting to watch those three camps coalesce and hash it out.
Humans as a whole broadcast sexuality. You can barely watch a movie without there being a love plot somewhere in there. We're bombarded day in and day out by commercials and advertisements, books and movies all containing some form of romance or sexuality. A husband buys a new Toyota for his wife, what a good husband. A girl puts on some good lipstick and gets the guy she was after, who share a tender kiss as the narrator drops the company's name. Your friend on Facebook announces that he's engaged to the girl he's been dating for months. The comments are all fawning over them, congratulating them and proclaiming how lucky they are, how happy they must be.
Gay people feel the same way as straight people. Humans love to broadcast their relationships. However, when gay people do it, it's seen as fake, fabricated. Two guys hold hands in a commercial: OMG SO MUCH PANDERING! A woman kisses her wife on the cheek as she shows her their new car: why do gay people have to shove it in their faces? A guy announces he's engaged on Facebook: I'm happy for you and all but I have to voice my opinion that gay marriage is wrong and I'm sad that you have to force it on us all the time.
I don't believe that most people see a peck on the cheek, a well timed kiss or hand holding as offensive or pandering. Acts that are naturally inappropriate in public do offend people, since the social standard of decency isn't being upheld. A common example is adult lap sitting. Its awkward to see an adult woman sitting in a mans lap at the bar. That is inappropriate behavior. Being gay doesn't suddenly make it appropriate. And since most people know its inappropriate, its perceived as an intentional statement. My uncle did that very thing to my grandmother. Oh it worked.
I myself understand that some people come screaming out of the closet in a 'gayplosion' and the standard of social decency often gets stomped on until it simmers. But people with limited interaction might be left with a lasting impression that its "in their face all the time".
In regard to the commercials, that is more complicated. As harmless as that example is, its seen as driven by agenda because this is an ongoing issue in America. Like the coke commercial, its designed to stir the pot. They knew it would before it hit the airwaves. That's perceived as a jab against those who don't share those views. The android commercials are awesome. "Be together, not the same". Other commercials imply "We think this way, and so should you" that is an agenda.
I'm not saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. What I've been advocating is that if someone, based on their beliefs, should REJECT the concept of it, if we're going to be a free country that their stance should be upheld and protected. There is absolutely no reason a gay couple can't go to a court house and become married.
Why does it have to be in a church? Why, if gay people believe that religion is impeding on their liberties would they even WANT to get married in a Christian church?
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
And I agree that groups attempting to stifle the speech of others is wrong, with the caveat that when the group is in session or if there's a designated area for "at risk" students that they should have the right to eject those they deem disruptive.
However, I addressed this when I made my original post. The people that use safe spaces as an excuse to shut down conversations throughout campus are very rare and tend to only be a big deal because south park ran an episode about it, which is where many people take their political opinions. They then use these caricatures and outright fabrications as excuses to attack more vulnerable members of society.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Actually, they want them to not use the same name. Also religious people don't want the right to say no denied. Examples would be not serving pizza at a gay wedding because they view it as giving permission to sin and aiding it. That being said they would gladly serve pizza to a gay person that walked in their establishment or someone that ordered from home. This is the most common view.
Assuming we're talking about marriage here, why should Christians have a stranglehold on the word "marriage" when it has been historically used to refer to secular unions between two people and also used by atheists, pagans and other such non-Christian groups?
This issue is incredibly complicated and while I fall more on the side that they shouldn't be allowed to refuse service for a gay marriage much like they shouldn't be allowed to refuse service for an interracial marriage based on the marriage itself, I can acknowledge why there would be resistance to this.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
You were just arguing that gay people should not be married.
Maybe if I write this in all-caps you might actually read it: NO ONE IS FORCING CHURCHES TO MARRY GAY PEOPLE.
No, I apologize. I should have been clear before I hit "post."
I'm glad we're having this discussion because the word "safe spaces" gives me a bit of revulsion because I immediately associate with those who would shut down free speech, and it's nice to be reminded that these viewpoints do not characterize the whole. I agree that Alcoholics Anonymous or LGBT groups are perfectly fine.
I cannot vouch for how rare or common the use of safe spaces to shut down opposing viewpoints is. However, it's not just a big deal because South Park made a big deal of it. I would argue it's a big deal regardless, because the issues of race and sexual orientation in this country are a big deal. Campus protests about said issues are a big deal. And when those movements end up doing exactly the thing they protest against - whether that involves trying to silence civil discourse, or just straight up being discriminatory - that's a big deal.
The literal definition of it is the problem. "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman". If you're a proud homosexual I can't see why you would even want to be associated with marriage. Civil unions exist to give you the same benefits as marriage already does. As I've said before, I am not straight, and still I can see the issue on the side of religion far better than the side of homosexuality. I see no reason why it has to be considered 'marriage'. I can't even comprehend why you would want that.
Anyway, I'm going to bed, Its late. I'll check back here in the morning. Goodnight all.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Some gay people want to be associated with marriage because they are also Christians. Several major Christian denominations happily recognize gay marriage. Who are you to tell those people that their definition of marriage is wrong, and that they should get a civil union instead?
... Erm, what?
Because marriage, to me, was never about a man and a woman, husband and wife. Even when I was young (before I developed any sexuality) I always saw it as a celebration of love, a declaration to the world that there's someone you care about as much as yourself. I may be a bit idealistic, but I still see marriage that way.
As I stated earlier, they most certainly do not. There are countless social benefits that come with being married that are simply not replicated with a civil union. Ignoring these to focus completely on legal definitions completely misses the crux of the problem.
I argue completely from the gay side, since I am gay, but I also once used to be against it. I was once a hardline Mormon, born and raised (and deeply in denial). I always saw it as the same thing. Why did gay people always complain, they could marry a woman if they wanted a marriage. They could get a civil union if they wanted visitation rights. Why did they want to broadcast their sexuality to the world?
After awhile, once I realized what I was, it became clear to me. I saw the world differently. Marriage is celebrated, a milestone for almost every person in America. What's the gameplan of the average American kid? Grow up, go to college, marry someone and get a good job. It's so ingrained in our collective psyche that marriage is something wonderful to strive for. It's everywhere, in our books, movies and music. Find someone you love, get married and live a happy life.
Humans as a whole broadcast sexuality. You can barely watch a movie without there being a love plot somewhere in there. We're bombarded day in and day out by commercials and advertisements, books and movies all containing some form of romance or sexuality. A husband buys a new Toyota for his wife, what a good husband. A girl puts on some good lipstick and gets the guy she was after, who share a tender kiss as the narrator drops the company's name. Your friend on Facebook announces that he's engaged to the girl he's been dating for months. The comments are all fawning over them, congratulating them and proclaiming how lucky they are, how happy they must be.
Gay people feel the same way as straight people. Humans love to broadcast their relationships. However, when gay people do it, it's seen as fake, fabricated. Two guys hold hands in a commercial: OMG SO MUCH PANDERING! A woman kisses her wife on the cheek as she shows her their new car: why do gay people have to shove it in their faces? A guy announces he's engaged on Facebook: I'm happy for you and all but I have to voice my opinion that gay marriage is wrong and I'm sad that you have to force it on us all the time.
By denying gay people marriage in favor of civil unions, it draws a line in the sand. Straight people's love is cool and should be celebrated. Gay people's love is only tolerated because the state is forced to by anti-discrimination laws. It's the very definition of separate but equal, that some people are inferior to others by an accident of birth. It forces them into a corner where they can't complain because hey, they have a civil union.
Now, I'm aware that you likely will not be swayed by this, and maybe I'm overly romantic, but I want to get that out there for people who aren't gay or maybe don't realize how much of a difference there is still.
Edit:
True, I was being a bit flippant there. I would say that it's a big deal on the internet because of the show putting the idea in people's heads, but I fully admit that I have no real proof of that.
I agree fully. Unfortunately, there is a subset of people within these groups that use them as an excuse to power trip, silencing other people and forcing their opinions on others.
I urge people to remember that the majority of safe spaces are completely benign and very beneficial to marginalized and abused groups. However, there are bad people in every group and unfortunately they give others a bad name.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
So should I be able to refuse to sell Pizza to people because they are black and my religion says black people are evil? Should I be able to refuse to perform an interracial wedding? What if Donald Trump being president is against my religion - should he be forced to instead call himself Prime Minister, perhaps, because it will otherwise offend me?
Spoiler: Your answer to all of those should be 'of course not, your religion needs to get over itself'
And if you don't want to get married, no one will make you. But marriage has a whole people of positive connections that literally nothing else does, even if you legally make 'civil unions' a thing. Marriage works, we have the legal framework for it, a tiny wording change and BOOM marriage!
Because marriage *used* to be defined as between people of the same race. But we all realised that was a ******* idiot idea, and changed it. Marriage *used* to be something your parents would arrange for you and you had no say in, and it was purely for trading wealth and making babies.
But, really, all you need is love.
More on topic!
I agree entirely. It's possible the establishment is pressuring him to stay in - not because he can win, but maybe he can bleed off votes in some proportional states in the hope of getting a contested convention.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Because the word marriage has religious connotations. Marriage to them is not a legal class it is a religious union. You are calling that sin the same word as their prayer. Even if we both know they are not the same. Also, I am not sure the interracial comparison is fair. One is discrimination based on the actions of the person. The other is discrimination based on their physical features. These are not the same thing at all. A better example would be not serving a wedding where there is pork because eating it is against your religion.
He should just drop out at do everyone a favor, including himself.
If it was purely a religious agreement then you would not have to sign a legally binding contract recognized by the United States Government. The term has just as much legal weight as religious weight. The interracial comparison is very fair because you are saying the that due attributes about the marriage you do not believe it should be allowed. Well tough luck pal its not for you to decide what other people do with their lives. Again no one is stepping on anyone else's religious freedom, we are only extending that freedom to other groups for whom there is no valid reason to discriminate against.
It also has religious connotations to me and I am tired of them trampling my religious rights by refusing to call a same sex union a "marriage".
Sexual orientation is a physical feature.
No, a better example would be trying to pass a constitutional amendment forbidding anybody anywhere in the country from serving pork at their wedding, even if you're not invited.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As to the first of course it would be. If you didn't get married under the sanctioning of a religion a devote person should not be forced to serve you.
Homosexuality is a genetic(maybe) behavior. So is murder, so is heterosexuality sex etc. We weren't talking about a constitutional amendment banning anything. You are still allowed to do what you want, I just don't have to help you do it. As for me personally I think religion is absurd(not spirituality) and am against marriage as a legal class. That being said I do think people should be allowed to express a moral opposition to things.
I don't know where people keep getting the idea that there is coercion involved in this process at any level.
Careful there, you are beginning to sound like one of those guys from Duck Dynasty
No one is inhibiting your ability to do so. You are victim of no oppression in this situation. No one is impeding your right to do anything.
What would coercion have to do with it. You are not married under my religious beliefs so I don't recognize the marriage.
A behavior is a behavior that is the plain truth. Maybe some you consider immoral, maybe some you don't, but they are still behaviors.
You need to look at this case in Washington.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/02/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-fined-same-sex-wedding_n_7718540.html
If you are getting fined 135k you are not being allowed to express moral opposition.
You can EXPRESS anything you want. But that's not what they were fined for. If you offer a service to the public, you have to offer it to everyone.
Sometimes I feel like I ramble a bit too much and don't get my point across, so I'm glad I managed with this one. Thanks.
Once again, I ask: should religious people be allowed to express moral opposition to interracial marriages and refuse to serve them? Both are based on actions: two people of the same gender getting married compared to two people of different races getting married. They could have found someone of their own race, y'know.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
That's not really true. There are plenty of reasons why a business might decline to provide services to someone (eg "No Shirt, No Shoes"). What matters is that society has decided that allowing certain reasons is detrimental to society. As such businesses are prohibited from discriminating based on race, religion, politics and now also sexual orientation.
But yeah, Rubio shouldn't still be in the race. He's too young and inexperienced to be president.
I think if Rubio drops out, Kasich wins Ohio, and then Rubio endorses Kasich, then we'd have an interesting race. Because we'd have the Trump supporters voting Trump, the not-Trump voters who lean right voting Cruz, and the not-Trump voters who lean moderate voting Kasich, and it would be interesting to watch those three camps coalesce and hash it out.
*Blinks* Holy *****, someone won a debate on the internet.
That make me really happy. Nice work, MrM0nd4y. And nice work, Infallible, as well.
I don't believe that most people see a peck on the cheek, a well timed kiss or hand holding as offensive or pandering. Acts that are naturally inappropriate in public do offend people, since the social standard of decency isn't being upheld. A common example is adult lap sitting. Its awkward to see an adult woman sitting in a mans lap at the bar. That is inappropriate behavior. Being gay doesn't suddenly make it appropriate. And since most people know its inappropriate, its perceived as an intentional statement. My uncle did that very thing to my grandmother. Oh it worked.
I myself understand that some people come screaming out of the closet in a 'gayplosion' and the standard of social decency often gets stomped on until it simmers. But people with limited interaction might be left with a lasting impression that its "in their face all the time".
In regard to the commercials, that is more complicated. As harmless as that example is, its seen as driven by agenda because this is an ongoing issue in America. Like the coke commercial, its designed to stir the pot. They knew it would before it hit the airwaves. That's perceived as a jab against those who don't share those views. The android commercials are awesome. "Be together, not the same". Other commercials imply "We think this way, and so should you" that is an agenda.
I too enjoyed your post, so thank you for that.
My Buying Thread