Ever notice how religious people are the most intolerant people in the world?...
What gives anyone the right to impose their religious beliefs upon others? Seperation of church and state?...
There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance...You don't need to accept something in order to tolerate it.
Thomas Jefferson talked about the pursuit of happiness...and God is the author of freedom of will...why do so many religious people try to deny people, whose lifestyle does not meet THEIR approval, those things?
In Salem, they burned witches...today, they persecute "homos"...wasn't that Martindales big thing too?
I am sorry some kids are fettered with reading, although I know of no curriculum where this book is required reading, maybe it is somewhere. Around here, books similiar to that are available, but not required reading, to fill a need for thse children who need to understand something relevant to them. I applaud that they are available. I didn't know that was a negative life change for myself. Dictionary definitions change all the time. It still doesn't change my way of life. I am mostly unaffected by what you call this "agenda", far less than I am affected by the agenda of certain other groups who wish to impose their own beliefs into the political spectrum.
Any group/class/religion seeks to make thier ideas be treated with respect, and themselves to be treated like well...... humans. I don't have a problem with that. I reject some people's ideas all the time but I still treat them the same as I would anyone else. My lifestyle goes on just the same. Now and then I actually learn from another viewpoint. That's not all bad.
it seems the change from 40 years ago is pretty clear on this issue. Kids in school were taught a man married a woman and had and raised children.
Today a marriage is ... any two people can marry, it seems a more temporary arrangement ... and kids belong to any number of social structures ... it takes a village to raise a child.
There are plenty of ramifications in society to all these changes. Even the judges made the point that yes, this was a change.
A majority of people do not want the change made legally or in speech ... so who makes those changes? So far one judge (if one decided differently, it would have switched the 4-3 decision).
It is not inevitable that this change be made, and change is not always good.
The gays I knew were pretty average to hang out with ... but there is a more radical minority element of the gay community that does strongly push a liberal agenda (as I see it). Most of them must be in San Fran.
I am not denying changes have occurred, only that they do not affect my life-STYLE
Sure... not mine either ...
The Iraq war has not influenced our life style either ... has it? Yet you may be vehemently against that. If our vets were left with no health care at all, it would not effect my life style. If children are taught a strict socialist anti American fabricated history, that does not effect my life style.
Any number of pretty big changes or decisions do not immediately influence our life style ... that does not seem very relevant to the debate. It is the long term effects on society that are being considered.
Any number of pretty big changes or decisions do not immediately influence our life style ... that does not seem very relevant to the debate. It is the long term effects on society that are being considered.
My comments regarding "way of life" were in response to Dove's statement:
Tolerance isn't good enough we must change our way of life to fit their agenda.
Because a significant percentage of the population is not responsible enough to deal with community property and child support issues without state intervention?
Okay, the poor benighted people are far too irresponsible to live our lives without the benefit of our benevolent and all wise bureaucratic overseers.
We mustn't have the 'irresponsible' sheepies bleating when the wolves come to devour their young.
so... the changing of the 'law' means that a marriage, a domestic commitment, regardless of gender qualifies couples to enjoy certain benefits from that commitment.
why does it make any difference as to what sex they are?
hetero couples who have made a commitment automatically enjoy these benefits.
hetero couples who do not make the commitment do not enjoy the benefits.
if a couple, whether hetero or homo, decides to make the same commitment they should be able to enjoy the same benefits.
you folks are just wanting your religious beliefs/views imposed on the masses... just as they have been for centuries, not the other way around.
what if you weren't fortunate enough to be born in this country?
what if you were born in Iran? ...what if you were born a Jew in Germany or Poland in WW2?
what if you were born black in 1860? ...or 1960 for that matter.
You're more than welcome to believe what you like regarding homosexuality... and of course you do
how you perceive homosexuals has nothing to do with whether or not it is discriminatory to not bestow the same benefits to couples who make a binding legal commitment to each other.
The fact that you're heterosexual doesn't mean that you're more deserving of any 'social/govermental benefits' does it? Surely you cannot argue that...
prejudice and bigotry are alive and well... and religion is usually at the bottom of it all.
Um, no, I never have noticed that. I don't know all that many gay folks, but the ones I do know, act incredibly similar to people...
I'd say the same goes for religious people as well.
yeah... and I'd suspect that you'll find a higher percentage of religious folks trying to force their beliefs on others than you would homosexual folks.
hetero couples who have made a commitment automatically enjoy these benefits.
hetero couples who do not make the commitment do not enjoy the benefits.
yes they do enjoy the same benefits ... only the term "marriage" is not given.
As the judge said, this IS a change in the meaning of marriage. It may be largely a Christian thing, but not wholly. A term that meant man and woman, now does not mean that according to the state of California.
Why change the term to satisfy these few? If people are prejudiced against homosexuality, are those few changed by changing our language? Is the term "marriage" bigoted on its own, just because it has always defined a union between a man and a woman?
They already had all the rights ... but to redefine language to make them seem "the same" seems wrong. It is pushing an acceptance of a practice some people don't accept. Like saying, "if you don't like this, we will force acceptance on you by changing the meaning of your heterosexual relationship to be the same as theirs."
Christians were not trying to force anything on homosexual unions, it was the other way around.
if a couple, whether hetero or homo, decides to make the same commitment they should be able to enjoy the same benefits.
you folks are just wanting your religious beliefs/views imposed on the masses... just as they have been for centuries, not the other way around.
They already had the same benefits ... they wanted more ... they wanted the same name for something that is clearly different by definition ...
what if you weren't fortunate enough to be born in this country?
what if you were born in Iran? ...what if you were born a Jew in Germany or Poland in WW2?
what if you were born black in 1860? ...or 1960 for that matter.
This seems irrelevant, but right, there are a lot of great qualities in the US. We should be very careful before we make changes to satisfy the radical left.
The 4-3 decision for CA only said that the state should call all unions the same thing. But that still seems to be forcing a view point by changing the language ... one way or the other. Prejudice or bigotry, where it may exist, is not changed by changing the term "marriage". Why is changing a very clear word necessary as a "remedy" to a different way of thinking by some?
You say these (bigoted and prejudiced) Christians have the right to think as they wish, but this is a change in legal language to help/push/force them to think of marriage in a new way ... a change in in age old term, only to satisfy the far left minority. Marriage will by decree, take on a new meaning.
The fact that you're heterosexual doesn't mean that you're more deserving of any 'social/govermental benefits' does it? Surely you cannot argue that...
In CA they already have the benefits ... they want the heterosexual term changed to now mean something different. Is that really an equal right? It is not an equal thing.
And we haven't touched on the children issue.
prejudice and bigotry are alive and well... and religion is usually at the bottom of it all.
yikes ... so much for an open minded discussion ... this is the classic far left argument ... "agree with us or you are racist, bigoted, prejudiced ... we will tell you what is right"
much of this great country (so much different than other places and times, as you noted) came because of some traditional values. This is not just a Christian issue, but you choose to call those that hold to the current definition prejudiced and bigoted. How did this country get to be so great if Christians were so dominant, as mstar's chart claims?
Why do they need to change the term? They already have the benefits ...
My understanding of the issue is that domestic partners already qualify for benefits that are regulated by The State of California but not for those that are regulated by the federal government, such as spousal related social security, veteran survivor benefits, etc.
What effects will the recent developments impart to this area of concern?
it was my understanding that they didn't have the benefits... survivorship rights, etc.
were those benefits available prior to this change?
And I didn't mention prejudice and bigotry just because folks disagree... but because they seem to be extremely vitriolic in their disagreement... many come across as thinking that they believe that homosexuals are a lower form of human being and not deserving of equal treatment... at least that's the way they come across.
Marriage is a union between two people... in the past it's always been "man and woman" but it's really an act of devotion between two people... and there are different types of people... not just heterosexual.
The reason I mentioned those other places and times is because those were examples of society where discrimination is/was the norm... the rights you enjoyed depended heavily upon what you believe or what color you were...
yeah... and I'd suspect that you'll find a higher percentage of religious folks trying to force their beliefs on others than you would homosexual folks.
Religion and homosexuality are very similar in this respect. I don't care if you do it, just don't shove it down MY throat.
Christians were not trying to force anything on homosexual unions, it was the other way around.
I didn't say "Christians" I said "religion/religious"... and I still haven't seen where any homosexuals have tried to force anything on anyone.
They already had the same benefits ... they wanted more ... they wanted the same name for something that is clearly different by definition ...
what's different? It's a legal union between two people... I guess this is where I'm missing it, I guess I've already been brainwashed over the years to think of it as something between two people...
You say these (bigoted and prejudiced) Christians have the right to think as they wish, but this is a change in legal language to help/push/force them to think of marriage in a new way ... a change in in age old term, only to satisfy the far left minority. Marriage will by decree, take on a new meaning.
again... I said "religion/religious" didn't single out "Christian"... what new meaning??? It was a union between two people before and it still is.
Certainly you must realize that there are different points of view and lifestyles out there that don't necessarily line up lock-step with yours. What has happened, essentially, is they've taken gender out of the term, really doesn't change the meaning of the term.
And we haven't touched on the children issue.
How many homosexual folks do you know?
I don't really hang out with any, but have been acquainted with and worked with quite a few folks who are of that persuasion. I find them to not really be much different than heterosexual folks in that there are good, bad and ugly in their group. I found them to be nothing at all like they were protrayed to me in TWI and church while growing up.
How many homosexual families do you know?
I've only been acquainted with two. The children of those families receive nothing but love from their parents. The children of those families are among the most beautiful, caring, loving and well adjusted kids I've ever met. I know it's a small sample but it's the only one I know.... oh... and they're 'normal' kids, they're not being raised to be a homosexual... but they are being raised to understand that people are different and might not think exactly as they do...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
52
16
Popular Days
May 18
57
May 17
34
May 25
29
May 21
27
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 22 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
rhino 52 posts
bfh 16 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
57 posts
May 17 2008
34 posts
May 25 2008
29 posts
May 21 2008
27 posts
Posted Images
cheranne
At least the wedding planners will have a new agenda outside the traditional bride and groom ,see allready creating
new jobs for California!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Yeah the florists will love it. They can both toss bouquets........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Ever notice how religious people are the most intolerant people in the world?...
What gives anyone the right to impose their religious beliefs upon others? Seperation of church and state?...
There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance...You don't need to accept something in order to tolerate it.
Thomas Jefferson talked about the pursuit of happiness...and God is the author of freedom of will...why do so many religious people try to deny people, whose lifestyle does not meet THEIR approval, those things?
In Salem, they burned witches...today, they persecute "homos"...wasn't that Martindales big thing too?
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Ever notice how Gay people impose their beliefs upon others, how they want to change the world to reflect their terminology.
Tolerance isn't good enough we must change our way of life to fit their agenda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Um, no, I never have noticed that. I don't know all that many gay folks, but the ones I do know, act incredibly similar to people...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
What in your life has been forced to change to fit their agenda? I am at a loss to think of how it has changed what I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I'd say the same goes for religious people as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Hap start with the dictionary and revising words. Our schools have to read stories like my mom Frank.. that's not tolerance that's pushing the agenda.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
I am sorry some kids are fettered with reading, although I know of no curriculum where this book is required reading, maybe it is somewhere. Around here, books similiar to that are available, but not required reading, to fill a need for thse children who need to understand something relevant to them. I applaud that they are available. I didn't know that was a negative life change for myself. Dictionary definitions change all the time. It still doesn't change my way of life. I am mostly unaffected by what you call this "agenda", far less than I am affected by the agenda of certain other groups who wish to impose their own beliefs into the political spectrum.
Any group/class/religion seeks to make thier ideas be treated with respect, and themselves to be treated like well...... humans. I don't have a problem with that. I reject some people's ideas all the time but I still treat them the same as I would anyone else. My lifestyle goes on just the same. Now and then I actually learn from another viewpoint. That's not all bad.
Edited by HAPe4meLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
it seems the change from 40 years ago is pretty clear on this issue. Kids in school were taught a man married a woman and had and raised children.
Today a marriage is ... any two people can marry, it seems a more temporary arrangement ... and kids belong to any number of social structures ... it takes a village to raise a child.
There are plenty of ramifications in society to all these changes. Even the judges made the point that yes, this was a change.
A majority of people do not want the change made legally or in speech ... so who makes those changes? So far one judge (if one decided differently, it would have switched the 4-3 decision).
It is not inevitable that this change be made, and change is not always good.
The gays I knew were pretty average to hang out with ... but there is a more radical minority element of the gay community that does strongly push a liberal agenda (as I see it). Most of them must be in San Fran.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
I am not denying changes have occurred, only that they do not affect my life-STYLE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Sure... not mine either ...
The Iraq war has not influenced our life style either ... has it? Yet you may be vehemently against that. If our vets were left with no health care at all, it would not effect my life style. If children are taught a strict socialist anti American fabricated history, that does not effect my life style.
Any number of pretty big changes or decisions do not immediately influence our life style ... that does not seem very relevant to the debate. It is the long term effects on society that are being considered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
My comments regarding "way of life" were in response to Dove's statement:
My way of life is unchanged due to "their agenda"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Okay, the poor benighted people are far too irresponsible to live our lives without the benefit of our benevolent and all wise bureaucratic overseers.
We mustn't have the 'irresponsible' sheepies bleating when the wolves come to devour their young.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
so... the changing of the 'law' means that a marriage, a domestic commitment, regardless of gender qualifies couples to enjoy certain benefits from that commitment.
why does it make any difference as to what sex they are?
hetero couples who have made a commitment automatically enjoy these benefits.
hetero couples who do not make the commitment do not enjoy the benefits.
if a couple, whether hetero or homo, decides to make the same commitment they should be able to enjoy the same benefits.
you folks are just wanting your religious beliefs/views imposed on the masses... just as they have been for centuries, not the other way around.
what if you weren't fortunate enough to be born in this country?
what if you were born in Iran? ...what if you were born a Jew in Germany or Poland in WW2?
what if you were born black in 1860? ...or 1960 for that matter.
You're more than welcome to believe what you like regarding homosexuality... and of course you do
how you perceive homosexuals has nothing to do with whether or not it is discriminatory to not bestow the same benefits to couples who make a binding legal commitment to each other.
The fact that you're heterosexual doesn't mean that you're more deserving of any 'social/govermental benefits' does it? Surely you cannot argue that...
prejudice and bigotry are alive and well... and religion is usually at the bottom of it all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
yeah... and I'd suspect that you'll find a higher percentage of religious folks trying to force their beliefs on others than you would homosexual folks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
WWZD
(What Would Zappa have Done?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
yes they do enjoy the same benefits ... only the term "marriage" is not given.
As the judge said, this IS a change in the meaning of marriage. It may be largely a Christian thing, but not wholly. A term that meant man and woman, now does not mean that according to the state of California.
Why change the term to satisfy these few? If people are prejudiced against homosexuality, are those few changed by changing our language? Is the term "marriage" bigoted on its own, just because it has always defined a union between a man and a woman?
They already had all the rights ... but to redefine language to make them seem "the same" seems wrong. It is pushing an acceptance of a practice some people don't accept. Like saying, "if you don't like this, we will force acceptance on you by changing the meaning of your heterosexual relationship to be the same as theirs."
Christians were not trying to force anything on homosexual unions, it was the other way around.
They already had the same benefits ... they wanted more ... they wanted the same name for something that is clearly different by definition ...
This seems irrelevant, but right, there are a lot of great qualities in the US. We should be very careful before we make changes to satisfy the radical left.The 4-3 decision for CA only said that the state should call all unions the same thing. But that still seems to be forcing a view point by changing the language ... one way or the other. Prejudice or bigotry, where it may exist, is not changed by changing the term "marriage". Why is changing a very clear word necessary as a "remedy" to a different way of thinking by some?
You say these (bigoted and prejudiced) Christians have the right to think as they wish, but this is a change in legal language to help/push/force them to think of marriage in a new way ... a change in in age old term, only to satisfy the far left minority. Marriage will by decree, take on a new meaning.
In CA they already have the benefits ... they want the heterosexual term changed to now mean something different. Is that really an equal right? It is not an equal thing.
And we haven't touched on the children issue.
yikes ... so much for an open minded discussion ... this is the classic far left argument ... "agree with us or you are racist, bigoted, prejudiced ... we will tell you what is right"
much of this great country (so much different than other places and times, as you noted) came because of some traditional values. This is not just a Christian issue, but you choose to call those that hold to the current definition prejudiced and bigoted. How did this country get to be so great if Christians were so dominant, as mstar's chart claims?
Why do they need to change the term? They already have the benefits ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
My understanding of the issue is that domestic partners already qualify for benefits that are regulated by The State of California but not for those that are regulated by the federal government, such as spousal related social security, veteran survivor benefits, etc.
What effects will the recent developments impart to this area of concern?
I'm just asking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Rhino,
it was my understanding that they didn't have the benefits... survivorship rights, etc.
were those benefits available prior to this change?
And I didn't mention prejudice and bigotry just because folks disagree... but because they seem to be extremely vitriolic in their disagreement... many come across as thinking that they believe that homosexuals are a lower form of human being and not deserving of equal treatment... at least that's the way they come across.
Marriage is a union between two people... in the past it's always been "man and woman" but it's really an act of devotion between two people... and there are different types of people... not just heterosexual.
The reason I mentioned those other places and times is because those were examples of society where discrimination is/was the norm... the rights you enjoyed depended heavily upon what you believe or what color you were...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Religion and homosexuality are very similar in this respect. I don't care if you do it, just don't shove it down MY throat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I didn't say "Christians" I said "religion/religious"... and I still haven't seen where any homosexuals have tried to force anything on anyone.
what's different? It's a legal union between two people... I guess this is where I'm missing it, I guess I've already been brainwashed over the years to think of it as something between two people...again... I said "religion/religious" didn't single out "Christian"... what new meaning??? It was a union between two people before and it still is.
Certainly you must realize that there are different points of view and lifestyles out there that don't necessarily line up lock-step with yours. What has happened, essentially, is they've taken gender out of the term, really doesn't change the meaning of the term.
How many homosexual folks do you know?
I don't really hang out with any, but have been acquainted with and worked with quite a few folks who are of that persuasion. I find them to not really be much different than heterosexual folks in that there are good, bad and ugly in their group. I found them to be nothing at all like they were protrayed to me in TWI and church while growing up.
How many homosexual families do you know?
I've only been acquainted with two. The children of those families receive nothing but love from their parents. The children of those families are among the most beautiful, caring, loving and well adjusted kids I've ever met. I know it's a small sample but it's the only one I know.... oh... and they're 'normal' kids, they're not being raised to be a homosexual... but they are being raised to understand that people are different and might not think exactly as they do...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Clearly, there are few here who should of stayed under Martidales regime, he would of straigtened out there butts!!
Rhino- I am enjoying your post..thxs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.