Prop 8, the highly controversial California proposition which will ban same-sex marriage, was passed by voters months ago. Today, lawsuits have failed to overturn it as the California Supreme Court has upheld the proposition.
People need to read Alt's site. I've seen this before, and if you read the real-life stories that they tell you, it breaks your heart that the majority doesn't give a hoot about the minority. I don't know about you guys, but this takes me back to the 60's, when they were desegregating schools, and some states were and weren't.
If AG was in the 60's, we would be talking about this, with the exact same attitude "I personally love the fact that it passed. If you have read that prop, you also know that it's not just banning desegregation, but saving religious freedom. For that, I'm glad it passed.", for people even so close a time still wished that they should have been lynched (is it a censored word here? I'm not sure, this is the first time I used it), because they believed they would be doing "the Christian way" by "eliminating the impure". So many things get taken out of the bible because of changing society, and I hope that the section about homosexuals gets taken out too, because the church takes current wrong things out of the bible to save their religious asses from getting wiped off the planet.
Shintetsu, you are taking things the wrong way as far the the catholic beliefs of homosexuality go. or maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are are saying... but here is my take on all the people taking the catholic belief about homosexuality and twisting it.
Love the sinner but hate the sin.
Catholics do not want to "eliminate the impure." thats more of a radicalist thing and it in fact goes against catholic teaching because it is not "loving your neighbor as yourself". Homosexuality in itself is not a sin, but acting upon it is.
For example, a Catholic man who is having homosexual thoughts or feelings is not sinning, but when he goes and sleeps with another man, then it does become a sin. The church seems to have acknowledged that it is just the nature of some people to have homosexual thoughts.
I myself do not agree with homosexuality, but that doesn't mean I would treat a person who is any differently. I personally dislike those crazy radicalists that claim they are attacking gays because it is their religion. A real Catholic man would want to help a homosexual rather than hurt him.
Many things that were once unconstitutional were perfectly fine back in the day. Marriage between blacks and whites where unconstitutional in many states. Does that mean there's no room for debate there? We should revert back to the old laws, because that was the constitution?
Times change. Things change. Deal with it.
I think you misunderstood. I mean it's unconstitutional to not let them marry. Wouldn't it also have been unconstitutional to not let blacks marry whites?
Homosexuality in itself is not a sin, but acting upon it is.
. . .this is the bad part of Christianity. That was in the Old Testament, which was written over 3,000 years ago. Face it- their view of society, homosexuals, and clothes of mixed fibers are antiquated and narrow-sighted, and invite prejudice like your post. Times are changing- and clinging to the VERY old ways of prejudice and misunderstanding will NOT help you. And also, gay rights are not religiously concerned AT ALL. Religion should have no place in politics, because of the antiquated and close-minded views FORCED by religious texts. This is not a religious debate, and it shouldn't be.
Love the sinner but hate the sin. Catholics do not want to "eliminate the impure." thats more of a radicalist thing and it in fact goes against catholic teaching because it is not "loving your neighbor as yourself". Homosexuality in itself is not a sin, but acting upon it is.
So, in your opinion, should we also have a law making it illegal to have sex before marriage? Or eat shrimp?
Those are also sins according to the bible, but people have the freedom to do them. Keep in mind as well, that since you are arguing this from a religious standpoint that acting on homosexuality is wrong, and there are *many* people who do not share your religious views, to have a law banning gay marriage is religious oppression.
The First amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
So if laws are passed on the basis of a chistian doctrine, then the U.S.A. *is* making laws respecting a religious establishment, and is unconstitutional.
Furthermore, if we take a look at the second line of the United States' declaration of independance:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Liberty, like - freedom from religious persecution. The pursuit of happiness, like - joining the man or woman you love in a marriage pact.
I think it's embarassing for California to uphold prop 8, but it's only for now. It'll be overturned soon enough; probably within a generation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Don't forget that can be taken many different ways to suit the needs of the speaker.
I think it's embarassing for California to uphold prop 8, but it's only for now. It'll be overturned soon enough; probably within a generation.
It wasn't the government who passed it, it was the people. The government came up with the idea. If they didn't like it, they wouldn't uphold it.
Now my opinion. What the people decided is final. If a small group of people don't like it, they shouldn't have sway over a vote. I would say the same thing if it didn't pass. The minority of votes shouldn't have sway over the majority of votes.
on't forget that can be taken many different ways to suit the needs of the speaker.
No it can't. If the law is based around the respect of a religion then it's unconstitutional. How can something that covers everything like that be twisted?
No it can't. If the law is based around the respect of a religion then it's unconstitutional. How can something that covers everything like that be twisted?
Yes it can, it could mean for religion, or against it. People can say what it doesn't mean, and not say what it does. Or vise versa.
Times are changing- and clinging to the VERY old ways of prejudice and misunderstanding will NOT help you.
I agree, the times are a changin (in the words of Bob Dylan) but I'm not clinging onto ways of prejudice. I never said I was in any way against gays. I just simply disagree with the lifestyle. Being prejudiced against homosexuals would be making judgments and harsh statements about them for the only reason that they are gay. But I'm not doing that.
So, in your opinion, should we also have a law making it illegal to have sex before marriage? Or eat shrimp? that since you are arguing this from a religious standpoint that acting on homosexuality is wrong, and there are *many* people who do not share your religious views, to have a law banning gay marriage is religious oppression.
No, I never said that, you are putting words in my mouth. I was not proposing laws against premarital sex, or shrimp...(i have no clue why you brought up shrimp). I was simply stating Christian belief on the topic of homosexuality. I'm tired of people making Christians out to be some close minded monsters that want to destroy everyone who disagree with their beliefs. The person that set me off was Shintetsu.
I am not arguing for, nor against homosexuality, I was stating the beliefs about Christians on the topic of homosexuality, because apparently you all think that Christians are abominations that want to kill all of the gays.
This is not a religious debate, and it shouldn't be.
I agree with you Alt, I'm just rather pissed at people like shintetsu that are depicting Christians as people who want to "eliminate the impure". Which isn't a true statement
I don't want to further comment on this, because I'm not really contribute to the topic at hand very well, I just wanted to clarify what I meant by my post because you and HiddenDistance seemed to have mis interpreted it.
I agree with you Alt, I'm just rather pissed at people like shintetsu that are depicting Christians as people who want to "eliminate the impure". Which isn't a true statement
That is definitwly untrue. I've never met a Christian who wanted to eliminate the impure. . . . ---
I just simply disagree with the lifestyle.
But my point is this: What's the point of disagreeing with the lifestyle? It's not something that most homosexual people can change, or want to change, so why?
