Protests- Proposition 8

I disagree. I think it started too, but people are dialing it back. Kudos to FPers keeping it level. I just like to issue my standard warning on divisive topics.

 

It's good to hear the back and forth. There's little debate here, because I think most people have made up their minds on this issue, and are simply espousing their opinions and their version of the facts. Although, I always take people more seriously when the point me to their sources, and those sources are credible and fact based.

 

Religion and politics are taboo at the dinner table for a reason. This one has the nice, tidy benefit of pulling from both forbidden wells. The thing I find the most interesting is that religious morality is being injected into civil law. The law isn't meant to uphold a religious ideology or surpress it (at least in this country). I wish that this topic wasn't so deeply tied to people's religious upbringings, because those vary almost as much as people do.

 

To me, if your priest doesn't want to marry you to someone of the same sex, that's between him, you and God. If your local magistrate doesn't, however, simply because of your sexual preference then it is detrimental discrimination by denying a set of benefits and privaleges from a section of the population based on ideology that has no place in government to begin with (in my opinion.)

"For you to come onto these forums, KNOWING that there are openly gay people in this guild who will read your comments, is the worst kind of trolling. How dare you tell me that my sexual identity is invalid because "there is an opposite sex for a reason." How dare you presume to know anything about me, to think that you could understand any of the frustration and difficulty coming to terms with a sexual identity that is unpopular in the country and time I was born into. How dare you tell me that I am not allowed to have a union with the same rights as heterosexual marriage because of some misguided, antiquated belief. How dare you come into my guild, my forums, a place where I can rely on people liking me for who I am, not who I sleep with, and stand on your soapbox and stir up trouble where it isn't needed or welcome.

 

I'd personally gkick you the moment I got home if I felt it would stick."

 

 

Is not toning it back, sorry Ryee, I think you are great and all but I see this going downward.

Edited November 12, 2008 by dragonlgnd

I'm requesting that this be closed, the people I'd expect to be civil are not being so, and this will get worse and get closed anyways.

 

It's not out of hand yet. I've only had to make three edits. This is nothing compared to the DKP thread.

Gynis, don't you mean Apple Juice?

i only see one remotely non-civil reply. what's his face has the right to say whatever backwards junk he wants, we have the right to tell him how we feel also.

 

ryee has a point, so does what's his face (wtf is his name it's not showing on this page anymore, thruster?). yes, i think his opinion is ignorant and misguided and even retarded, but it's his opinion and he has a right to it. ryee has a right to his opinion to, and if he wants to express his opinion and say that he'd gkick this guy, then in my opinion he has every right to say so. it's just talk.

I personally did not find anything worse in Joey's response than in Thruster's post. In fact, I believe that Joey came to the table with factual back-up for his statements, rather than a one-liner intended to piss people off.

 

To be clear, I agree with Memphis. The people have voted and no amount of protest is going to change the vote. However, I feel strongly that this should not even be an issue in America today, and I will be at the protest in Atlanta.

On a lighter note, Connecticut still kicking ass.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27677272/

I'm going to ask again that this be closed. Not because it's gotten way out of hand, but because of the people who are heading that way.

i still don't see why, nothing bad is happening here. it's 99% healthy debate and 1% outburst.

I'm going to deny, again, because it's still a legitimate discussion that is heated, but so far not out of control. Those who are toe-ing the line have been informed and won't go back to it.

 

Don't brace for the onslaught. I promise, a few level heads are monitoring this thread quite closely.

I disagree lemons, i think it's 2% outburst and 98% debate!

It makes me so sad to see people who still don't believe that everyone should have the same rights. Maybe it's because I'm not a religious person and I don't see this as a religious issue but instead as a civil rights issue and I just don't think civil rights are something that should be left to a vote. I hope that one day I will be able to stand next to my sister at her wedding and I really hope that my daughter will grow up knowing that there is nothing wrong with her aunts and that they are not second class citizens. I also hope she grows up knowing that she is free to love whomever she chooses and she should not have to feel ashamed or scared to be exactly who she was born to be.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Morgause

I think it's 95% monologue, 2% outburst, 1% trolling.

 

This post bumps the 1% analysis.

I disagree lemons, i think it's 2% outburst and 98% debate!

 

i guess if you add up matt and ryee's posts it might make 2%

 

BUT THEY'RE GAY SO IT COUNTS LESS AMIRITE?

 

jokes

 

for once i actually agree with gg, it's civil rights. religion should have nothing to do with it at all.

Short, Sweet and to the point.

 

Anybody can do what they want with their life. Personally, I could care less. More girls for me :3

 

I think it's 95% monologue, 2% outburst, 1% trolling.

 

This post bumps the 1% analysis.

 

That's a total of 99%

Edited November 12, 2008 by Trenton

Margin of error.

For those interested, Olbermann made a very well thought out speech on the issue at hand.

 

I personally don't always agree with the man but he gained a lot of respect from me for this one.

 

Olbermann on Prop 8

I think it's 95% monologue, 2% outburst, 1% trolling.

 

This post bumps the 1% analysis.

I was writing that exact same freaking thing Mike, GG.

 

And just a heads up, you guys were trolled on your own forums. Props to Thruster for hitting a nerve with a sledge hammer. Matt was the first to go a little off kilter. Anyhoo before Stang beats me with the homo justice stick (Penis goes where"?!) I'd just like to point out that we're all family here, and families have disagreements. This is doubly true if you ever are force to go to thanksgiving or Christmas dinner with my family...

 

ANYWAYS!

 

I find that forums, and the internet in general, magnify the volume of people's ideas / comments (kind of the post modern purpose of the internet) If this same converstation was happening in person then I promise you it'd remain civil and calmer heads would prevail. Or the disenting voices would be thrown off the balcony at FPHQ. /shrug

 

Discussion is good, Lets keep it at that =)

 

**EDIT**

i saw that special comment Keith did last night as well Jon, Mad props to the guy I love his style.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Ecthelion

Being thrown off the FPHQ balcony is not as threatening anymore. Unless you have a dislike for large piles of animal feces.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Enigami

Ugh, I hope this idea is clear.

 

Religion is a huge part of our laws already. We give special contractual treatment to marriages which is an instituion of religion. The same rights and privliges for two people outside of marriage takes mounds of paperwork to emulate.

 

I am of the opinion that marriage is a way to give a tax break to people so they don't have to spend time and money doing endless paperwork to gain rights to property and monies that marriage would entitle them to. To me this indicates that our contractual system is too complex to deal with the simplicities of property ownership and Marriage agreements only increase the complexity of that system which leads our society into divorce courts when most of those disagreements should fall under property law. Child arrangements are the only place where I think we need to retain the divorce court specialization.

 

I think we should abolish Marriage in the governments eyes. Religion will truely be separate from state contracts and religions can utilize their systems of Marriage while the government exercises contracts between two people no matter the gender or race without concern of infringing on the "sanctity" of religious marriage.

Rofl ecth, getting thrown off the balcony. =P

 

Good post GG

Ugh, I hope this idea is clear.

 

Religion is a huge part of our laws already. We give special contractual treatment to marriages which is an instituion of religion. The same rights and privliges for two people outside of marriage takes mounds of paperwork to emulate.

 

I am of the opinion that marriage is a way to give a tax break to people so they don't have to spend time and money doing endless paperwork to gain rights to property and monies that marriage would entitle them to. To me this indicates that our contractual system is too complex to deal with the simplicities of property ownership and Marriage agreements only increase the complexity of that system which leads our society into divorce courts when most of those disagreements should fall under property law. Child arrangements are the only place where I think we need to retain the divorce court specialization.

 

I think we should abolish Marriage in the governments eyes. Religion will truely be separate from state contracts and religions can utilize their systems of Marriage while the government exercises contracts between two people no matter the gender or race without concern of infringing on the "sanctity" of religious marriage.

 

Lemon already posted that they took the religion out of marriage in the law with Clinton's signature. Even though it might have been based on a religious institution, they pretty much gave us what the "legal" definition of marriage is. So - even if they change the name, the law would still stick. Homosexuals do not have equal rights under the law. The world needs to understand that there are two definitions for the same word, one legal and one religious. You can prescribe to one or both, but the legal one should be the one I use to file my taxes.

Lemon already posted that they took the religion out of marriage in the law with Clinton's signature. Even though it might have been based on a religious institution, they pretty much gave us what the "legal" definition of marriage is. So - even if they change the name, the law would still stick. Homosexuals do not have equal rights under the law. The world needs to understand that there are two definitions for the same word, one legal and one religious. You can prescribe to one or both, but the legal one should be the one I use to file my taxes.

 

^ this

 

YAY HOMOS ILU

 

wouldn't a gay wedding be the most off the chain sh!t you've ever been to? i hope i get to see one in my lifetime

Short, Sweet and to the point.

 

Anybody can do what they want with their life. Personally, I could care less. More girls for me :3

 

 

 

That's a total of 99%

 

Preach on! I forgot exactly who said it but something along the lines of 'Gay people have a right to be as miserable as everyone else' XD I dunno when the hell people decided that the separation of church and state was a good line to blur, but this use of 'marriage' is 100% a legal item, not religious. Think of poor Bert and Ernie, shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else?

its legal here...

 

i see no reason why it shouldn't be.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2008 by raela/pansie