The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-06-2011, 10:46 AM   #301
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormieweather View Post
I don't think that is possible. The very foundation of religion IS a system of "beliefs". Many of the more extreme religions disallow tolerance, insisting that conversion and obedience to their dogma is the only acceptable way to live.
How is that different from Catholicism or Islam? The only difference is that we are not used to people of Mormon faith distancing themselves from the fundamentalist level while we are used to it with Catholicism or Islam.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 10:55 AM   #302
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
I had a couple of really good friends through my gaming guild who were mormons. Years ago, but they were lovely people.

I don't really see them as being that diffferent to many other Christian denominations. I remember having a conversation once with Talon (one of the mormons) about the notion in their reading of creation, that the tribe that turned from God and were cast out and marked by black complexion were the origins of black people...

I considered that racist. He considered it ancient history. Since his wife was a black lass it seemed unlikely he saw that history as in any way relevant to his world today.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 11:15 AM   #303
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIam View Post
Just because he would allow civil unions does not mean Huntsman is a champion for gay rights.
At this time, this is not a MAJOR issue to me. We have MUCH BIGGER problems to deal with.
Quote:
Huntsman takes into account the growing acceptance on the part of the public of the gay life style and supports civil unions. Yet he is against "redefining marriage."
Well said, again marriage and civil unions are not the same thing.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 11:19 AM   #304
infinite monkey
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 13,002
Gays have just as much right to go through a shitty divorce as everyone else.

LIke marriage is so special and unattainable and hard to do. People hop from one to another like they're riding the rails to PerfectLand. Pffffft.

*shrugs*
infinite monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 11:52 AM   #305
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Gah - communication breakdown ...
To some, marriage is a religious contract, a civil union is not.
Essentially the same, but without that one element. Is it right, fair, just... not the issue.
All I am saying is that some do not view the two as equal with respect to the religious component
and that is a BIG difference to those people.
I am not saying they cannot nor should not have all the same benefits,
just that the two terms have different meanings to some.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 12:03 PM   #306
infinite monkey
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 13,002
I wasn't directing toward you, c-man. It was really just an off-handed comment on my part.

You know, my tongue-in-cheek observations, for which I am disdained at best, ignored at worst.

Such brilliance is not for normal human consumption.

infinite monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 12:30 PM   #307
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
Gah - communication breakdown ...
To some, marriage is a religious contract, a civil union is not.
Essentially the same, but without that one element. Is it right, fair, just... not the issue.
All I am saying is that some do not view the two as equal with respect to the religious component
and that is a BIG difference to those people.
I am not saying they cannot nor should not have all the same benefits,
just that the two terms have different meanings to some.
All that follows is my personal opinion even if it is dogmatic.

If marriage is a "religious contract", then should it be a matter of federal law
providing for - or protecting - some citizens, but not others?

If one agrees that separate is not equal, then the "civil unions"
are only the current step in the direction of equal civil rights for everyone.
Anyone believing they are equal, essentially owns the burden of proof
to justify and to rectify each and every instance of inequality.

It would be easier to change the word "marriage" throughout our laws
to mean only the religious contract within any given religion,
and to have all legal aspects of "marriage license"
changed to words meaning something akin to "civil union".

In any case, whether one believes a candidate will separate his "religion" or beliefs
from his "elected office" is simply a matter of each person's own judgment
of the candidate... no rules to be followed, just personal perception.

Isn't it odd that we don't usually even consider such an issue
with a candidate whose religion is similar to our own.
.

Last edited by Lamplighter; 12-06-2011 at 01:09 PM.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 08:07 PM   #308
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
Well said, again marriage and civil unions are not the same thing.
How are they different from the government's perspective, ie the perspective from which we should care at all what any politician says about it? Any difference would be discriminatory, as far as I can tell.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 08:20 PM   #309
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Agreed. My point was the terminology.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 08:22 PM   #310
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
If they mean the same thing, then why would the government have one word for straight marriage and another for gay marriage?
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 08:45 PM   #311
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Whoa, back up a sec. You just equated "civil union" with "gay marriage"
Civil marriages are not sanctioned under religious law, marriage is.
Thats the difference I was referring to.
If you have an issue with the government ask your representative, I have.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 08:53 PM   #312
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
What's the difference, from the government's perspective? People married by a justice of the peace are currently married, from the government's perspective, without any religious sanction. Under the regime of a politician who supports civil unions but not gay marriage, gays married by a church would still get a civil union.

So, again, I ask you. What's the difference, from the government's perspective, between marriage and civil union?

If there's no difference, then there's no need for different words. If there is a difference, then it's discrimination.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 09:34 PM   #313
ZenGum
Doctor Wtf
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Badelaide, Baustralia
Posts: 12,861
In France, they brough in Civil Unions to appease the gay lobby, or so they thought.

Last I heard, around 30% of heterosexual couples were getting civil unions and bypassing the Church completely.

Naturally the Churchy-types freaked.


ALL marriages should be civil unions. Anyone wishing to do a church ritual is free to do so, but this should be irrelevant to the legal status of the union.
__________________
Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008.
Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl.
ZenGum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 09:56 PM   #314
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
I was just stating the fact that the terminology is an issue for many people.
Personally, I think that any union - marriage or whatever between two humans
should have the same legal/governmental rights as all the rest whether they be gay,
straight, bi, trans ... wtfe. (No Hobos though) It matters not to me PERSONALLY.
Quote:
So, again, I ask you. What's the difference, from the government's perspective, between marriage and civil union?
So again, I reply - If you have an issue with the government's perspective ask your representative.

ETA - Sorry Zen. Missed your post while composing mine.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 10:32 PM   #315
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
I don't have a representative. I'm asking a person who at least twice said that marriage and civil unions were different things. But the only distinction you have made is religious sanction, which should not be, and is not currently, a distinction under the law.

When a politician says they don't support marriage for gays, but they do support civil unions, and you applaud their making that distinction, I am asking you what that means for the law. Which is the perspective that matters when a politician says it. He's not running for pope.

Huntsman (in this instance, but also Obama, among others) said he didn't support "redefining marriage", but that is exactly what he would have to do if he supported a government policy that people who were married by a justice of the peace are no longer married, as Lamplighter and ZenGum suggest.

If, on the other hand, he wants to keep current marriage law in place for straight people, but make up a new class of marriage for gay people, but with a different name, that sounds like discrimination to me.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.