Oh dear.

Since I'm losely following that thread which is discussing about religion, I thought I'd share with you all something that disgusts me as an accepting person in todays world.

I went onto Youtube and among the 'freinds activity' box was a video added recently, which explains about how some state in the US legalized Homosexual marridge. Nothing out of the ordinary there, until I hear that they're trying to BAN this and stop it from happening.

I mean, I'm sorry. I thought this was 2008, in a civilized society that is accepting of others.

The video in question is found here, from a person that I've been subscribed to for many months because of his motorcycle blogs.

He's a very strong Christain, often trying to make people convert to Christianity, some of his comment is disgusting from my point of view.
Bear in mind this is some guy in his mid 30's or 40's, with a wife and kids.

Quote from Shockawenow :

I know this is getting ridiculous now how the militant homosexual agenda is infecting down into children.

Quote :

Theparty1984: Dear lord this has to pass. The plague of "gay marriage" has spread far enough from MA to CA and now to CT, we have to stop it here and now.

shockawenow: (2 hours ago) Very well said.

I mean come on man, grow the f**k up. This is 2008, people are gay. Just because people are gay doesn't mean they don't have feelings (Pardon the pun, wasn't intended), they should have every right to have some sort of wedding with their partners. The same right that straight couples have.

Anyway, basically they're angry and do not approve of young children being told about marridge between people of the same gender.

To be honest, this is the whole black man thing that went on many years ago, trying to make everyone 'conform', and those who don't can go suck an egg.

No, just no.

Why do they oppose children being told this? Are they trying to promote violence and hatred towards Homosexual people?

I'm sure 95% of the people that vote for this will be religious people, many of them Christain. Why? Because 'god' doesn't allow it.

Bullshit to that, I say. God tells you to accept other people for what they are, to hold no predujices, to treat others as you wish to be treated.

This to me is just the proof that religion is a load of shit.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

Are they trying to promote violence and hatred towards Homosexual people?

Well you're no better then those crazy homophobic people. They are saying that homosexuals are "infecting down to children", while you are basically saying that people who are anti-homosexual are militant. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but just letting you know that it came across as being a little hypocritical in my opinion.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

I'm sure 95% of the people that vote for this will be religious people, many of them Christain. Why? Because 'god' doesn't allow it.

Bullshit to that, I say. God tells you to accept other people for what they are, to hold no predujices, to treat others as you wish to be treated.

This to me is just the proof that religion is a load of shit.

How does that make religion a "load of shit"? Just because most people aren't following the basis of their religion doesn't mean it is a load of shit. Also, it seems a little extreme to call religion a "load of shit." Just because you don't understand it does not invalidate it.

Well, I'm not saying they're militant, I can't see how that came across. I said nothing of the sort.

It makes it a load of shit because it is hypocritical in it's own sense. It's their attitude, as well.

For all the US talks about democracy, the truth is that a great many of its population (particularly in the influencial lobby groups and in the bible belt) yearns for a theocracy. WE may have grown out of all that crap here in Europe, but the US is a baby nation. It's only 230 years old and, like all the rest of us, it's going to have to suffer to eventually be beautiful.

It's par for the course.. they'll come out the other side in a couple of hundred years, and be all the more strong as a nation as a result of it

I don't see why the government has to regulate marriage anyway.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

I don't see why the government has to regulate marriage anyway.

But you do see a problem when a government thinks that it should, right?

Democracy is only okay if you don't stick things in peoples arseholes, I thought everyone understood that! It's why our government gave up on democracy years ago, the public school boy bender bridgade that is the labour government love nothing more than exploring the fudge coated love tunnels of their peers.

Disclaimer: I am in no way homophobic, although if Graham Norton jumped out on me in a dark alley I might run away just to be safe, or punch him because he is an annoying twat, then run away.

Prop 8 is only in CA/for CA.

While religious bigots will vote "yes" for all the wrong reasons (for the sake of being anti-gay), don't let the "gay rights" issue become a red herring: Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. all define "marriage" as between men and women. The very concept of "marriage" (a purely religious idea not synonymous with monogamy, simply living with someone forever, OR legal/economical implications) was brought about by some of these people many thousands of years ago.

You gotta ask yourself: Does one really have the right to mess with the ancient, sacred traditions of these people?

A "no" vote just to "stick it to the religious" is just as bad as a "yes" vote to "stick it to the gays."

I just don't like the idea of stealing someone else's idea and forcing them to change it to suit you. At least give them the courtesy of giving it a different name.

I'll vote for gay rights, but also for separation of church and state: religion that isn't governed by the state's own doctrine. I say stop calling it "marriage" in lawbooks altogether. Allow civil unions for all who apply--but leave the religious ceremonies to the religious!

Marriage is interwoven in the fabric of our laws, there are even tax benefits.

Most importantly though, it's [supposedly, unless you are Protestant] a commitment to a partner for life.

The fact that many gay people want to make this commitment to each other is in no way related to ancient religious ceremonies.

Marriage is well beyond the domain of the religious already, with numerous weddings occuring outside the preying eye of extremists fruitcakes and their Sunday hats.

Sooner or later the Christians are going to have to actually read their own damn book and understand it, both in context and in meening, and realise that the bible never actually said much about homosexuality and less of all anything negative. What is against God's will, according to their own good book, is all the many other sexual vices that are strictly outlawed and not adhered too by 99.95% of the congregation.

The Christians in America have already plunged the world into war in the last few years, they're the most dangerous and scary extremists in the world right now. They're a crazy and irrational bunch, imposing their own world view on an ancient fairy tale and all the while holding a big red button and being prepared to fire it aslong as the target is either gay or has a towel on their head.

Scary, scary indeed.

So why are we all so eager to copy them with marriage (usually in churches, no less)?

Tradition, I guess. Who cares about tradition, though.

Well, I've been thinking about it and maybe I was wrong. It isn't that religious anymore, is it? a lot of straight couples just drive to Vegas and let Elvis marry them... or skip the ceremony altogether and just sign the papers. But they still need an ordained religious minister of some kind to do the deed--unless they can find a lawyer or a ship's captain or something.

And is it really that romantic to make a lifelong commitment to someone before... the State Gov't? "Hey, baby. I'll love you until the Gov't falls apart."

Quote :

they still need an ordained religious minister of some kind to do the deed--unless they can find a lawyer or a ship's captain or something.

Or a registrar... Unless you dont have that over there, here we've had non-religious weddings since well before my time.

Quote from wark :

You gotta ask yourself: Does one really have the right to mess with the ancient, sacred traditions of these people?

The answer must be a resounding "NO!" The institute of marriage existed long, long before Christianity came about. And now the Christians want to monopolise marriage, and claim that it should conform to THEIR norms? It's just preposterous.

Joke aside. Marriage is the recognition by a group of the union between two members of the group. We're talking about civil marriage here, and the group is the whole nation. If the nation decides that civil marriage should be open to gay couples, no religious rights are violated. Christian groups can still shape their religious marriage as they see fit. They have no reason to be offended.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

How does that make religion a "load of shit"? Just because most people aren't following the basis of their religion doesn't mean it is a load of shit. Also, it seems a little extreme to call religion a "load of shit." Just because you don't understand it does not invalidate it.

There are enough threads on that subject to fill an area of Internet the size of Ireland with threads one metre high.

I would make a post about why Prop 8 is a mad as arseholes (no pun intended) idea but wsinda has made it for me.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Or a registrar... Unless you dont have that over there, here we've had non-religious weddings since well before my time.

Right. Nothing inherently religious about the lawyers or Elvises I mentioned, either.

I guess the big deal with the religious folks is that they're obliged to respect their government (not that they always do).

The funny thing is, I could go get legally married to a girl by the wave of a registrar's magic wand, and make out with her in church or something, and the ferocious people would harass us until they found out that we were "technically married." Then they'd have to leave us alone. I'm not even kidding.

I guess it's that logic that would twist their brains into pretzels if a gay couple walked into church. They'd usually go apeshit on them, but now they'd have to treat them like humans. It's that kind of a paradox that they're scared of.

All I know is the subject of marriage seems to have popped up a lot in my life lately and there's no way on Earth imma getting hitched any time soon! Although I would like to change my surname, but my partner insists i'll never have hers, infact, here's a snippet... (name changed)

an u will not steal my name... go find urself a last name of ur own
"Do you Miss van Dyke and Miss Rose take each other to become Mrs & Mrs van Dyke and Dominguez"?

I gather in the Netherlands, who have a 'domestic partnership' for gay couples, they're still resillient to matching last names - there appears to be quite a bit of red tape regarding name changing over there.

America might still be in the dark ages to some extent, but even in Europe there is a long way to go.

Fundamentally marriage is little more than a very expensive piece of paper designed to deprive you of finances when you're trying to start in life, you can ask what is the point of Gay's getting married? The answer is it's pretty much the same as straight people getting married.

My partner is against the concept of it (yet keeps bringing it up :schwitz Personally i'd like to think that one day i'll feel ready to commit the rest of my life to one person, but i'm in no rush. Neither of us are that fussed about the 'rights' issue, we'll do what we do anyway.

On the plus side the idea of divorse being very expensive for her is quite a bonus (mwhaha there's no escaping now!). I dunno, I like the idea of getting married but when I try to imagine the commitment I just dont like the reality. I would need to know the commitment i'm making is absolute, and I dont know if I would recognise an absolute commitment if it was dancing naked infront of me with a giant plackard.

What i'm saying is that everybody is an individual, and what is right for one couple may well be completely different for another couple, irrespective of sexual orientation. We're a world full of individuals and no preaching or sermon or law will change whether or not I commit to my partner for life. No matter how much my nocturnal activities may disgust (and lets face it, only because it turns them on) the deeply devout, they're not as well qualified to determine the commitments I make than I am, and they're not justified in judging or giving guidance to any other gay couple either.

Quote :

The Christians in America have already plunged the world into war in the last few years, they're the most dangerous and scary extremists in the world right now. They're a crazy and irrational bunch, imposing their own world view on an ancient fairy tale and all the while holding a big red button and being prepared to fire it aslong as the target is either gay or has a towel on their head.

Now, I'm not religious myself and certainly not American, but the level of ignorance in this paragraph drew me to respond.

"The Christians in America have already plunged the world into war in the last few years, they're the most dangerous and scary extremists in the world right now."

So, all Christians in America, of which ~83% of the population has self-identified, held some sort of conference(?) between leaders and the general population before arriving at a decision to "plunge" the "world" into war. Aside from the operations in Afghanistan and the Iraq war, both basically third-world countries, what other of the ~190 countries on Earth have been plunged into war by the hand of Mr. Bush's Christian army?

Let's see how many countries have been affected by Islamic extremism? Spain, London (which obviously didn't affect you), Russia, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Algeria, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and the Philippines.

But no, it's all about the evil Christians! Nevermind the wide variety of Christian churches that differ in theology, organization, programs, and policies. Nevermind that even Senator Obama is a Christian, along with Americans from all walks of life. Nevermind that killing another is never permitted in any widely-practiced form of Christianity. No, you're right, they're all the same: dangerous, impulsive and eager to force their religion on others.

You need to realize that Christian extremism is a lot like Islamic extremism, but with very little of the actual violence part. There are several Christian groups in the US that hold pretty f*cked-up opinions, but that's why they're small fringe groups with absolutely no power to do much of anything. For example, there's the famous "Army of God", who was responsible for abortion clinic bombings in the past, but who haven't comitted any such crimes in over 10 years. There's the Aryan nations, KKK, etc. All small groups with little to zero influence on mainstream America.

"They're a crazy and irrational bunch, imposing their own world view on an ancient fairy tale and all the while holding a big red button and being prepared to fire it aslong as the target is either gay or has a towel on their head."

I don't understand any of this. Please, explain your assertions in this statement.

Meanwhile, I'll just mention that there's actually growing support amongst Christian groups in the US for same-sex marriage and that in 11 out of 12 major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, or Arabs and non-Arabs, the US has sided with the former group. (conflicts including Turkey and Greece, Bosnia and Yugoslavia, and Kosovo and Yugoslavia)

Quote :

So, all Christians in America, of which ~83% of the population has self-identified, held some sort of conference(?) between leaders and the general population before arriving at a decision to "plunge" the "world" into war.

That's the nature of democracy yes. In fact, according to the Hague convention, citizens are responsible for a leaders crimes in acts of war, and encumbent to reign their leader in when they, let's say go on holy crusade launching an illegal war in the middle east?

I say this, because it is my opinion, having never cooled off or forgiven this act, that the war in the middle east was religiously motivated and conspired by two deeply religious world leaders, Bush and Blair.

Regarding the incidents labelled as terrorism, I say that carefully, because whilst there certainly where acts of terrorism (and preceeding tensions which led to the "REACTION" of terrorist attack) there have been many more things called terrorism than actually where when there was a political need to justify an illegal religious crusade to purge the Middle East of linen related headwear.

Quote :

Nevermind that killing another is never permitted in any widely-practiced form of Christianity.

I'm not going to go and look up the body count so far, I dont really want to look at the numbers as it will upset me and it's been widely reported that casualty figures amongst civilians are wildly higher than official numbers, which just makes it worse. There's a saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, and it's well documented [in the bible] all the many circumstances in which Christians are supposed to kill others.

Quote :

Meanwhile, I'll just mention that there's actually growing support amongst Christian groups in the US for same-sex marriage

They're not even entitled to an opinion, it's not their lives. Of course i've been qiute vocal around these parts with my views on religion and you could argue i'm not entitled to having a view on them - the difference is that they DO effect me, they have done quite substantially right from my schooling. Organised religion is an evil, it's worshippers should be duprived of wealth power and influence, without exception. It should not be tolerated in a modern, ethical, society, and those who defend it should be discarded from the collective conscious of our civilisation.

i went to a very strict christian school in terms of their religious beliefs, and they preached that everyone is equal in gods eyes, dont judge, etc. What a huge bunch of hypocrites. we were taught about homosexuality in our "religion" classes and you can guess what the conscription material was like they force fed us. Basically homosexuality is bad and you will burn in hell for it. Im just glad im one of the few that could think for myself. Funnily enough there were some gay people in my class at school (girls ) and i can only imagine how they must have felt in those religious classes when the teacher was taking the piss out of homosexuality.

Quote from Becky Rose :

America might still be in the dark ages to some extent, but even in Europe there is a long way to go.

seems to me thats more thanks to the lazy lawmakers than the great unwashed... the european publics oppinion about the topic seems to be "whatever" ie not bothered enough to either oppose or support

Quote :

I dunno, I like the idea of getting married but when I try to imagine the commitment I just dont like the reality.

do gays also instantly stop having sex the moment they get married?

Quote from Shotglass :

do gays also instantly stop having sex the moment they get married?

Ask me in a decade or two.

Quote from Becky Rose :

you can ask what is the point of Gay's getting married?

Dunno, but I like to think gays are entitled to the same illusions as straights.

Quote :

when I try to imagine the commitment I just dont like the reality. I would need to know the commitment i'm making is absolute, and I dont know if I would recognise an absolute commitment if it was dancing naked infront of me with a giant plackard.

What commitment? Don't know how it is in UK, but in the Netherlands there is no "till death us do part" vow. Not anymore, anyways. You can pledge eternal love to your sweetheart if you want, but there's no need to do that in the town hall.

I view marriage as a simple, one-size-fits-all legal package. It includes arrangements for shared property (including house and pension rights), kids and so on. Example: suppose you're not married, have no civil union or whatever, and your love becomes ill and goes in a coma. Your rights to decide about operation or (if it comes to that) funeral are... exactly zero. It's her relatives who get to decide. If the in-laws don't like you, they can just throw you out.

Quote from wark :

So why are we all so eager to copy them with marriage (usually in churches, no less)?

Tradition, I guess. Who cares about tradition, though.

+100.

Not married, never married, never will be married. Happily (-ish!) living with the same girl for the last eight years, never even considered getting married even briefly. It's meaningless for me.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Not married, never married, never will be married. Happily (-ish!) living with the same girl for the last eight years, never even considered getting married even briefly. It's meaningless for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

or even

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putative_marriage

You might be already married without even realising it

But seriously, i'd say each to his own. It's only religion that's propagated the myth of marriage, yet few of the religious marriages are anything but. If we really want to get into the christian interpretation of marriage, then all our REAL spouses are the first girl/boy we shagged . So if we didn't marry the person we lost our virginity to, then we're all nothing but sinful adulterators, prostitutes and whores, nice.

Hmmm, is there a such thing as Heterosexual same-sex marriage? Homosexuality is being sexually attracted to a member of the same gender. But is it not possible to want to marry/spend the rest of your life with someone of the same gender, but not be sexually attracted to them?

i live in the state that is trying to pass this legislation. Gay people here have EXACTLY the same rights as domestic partners that married heterosexual couples have.

The current precedent set by the California supreme court makes it illegal for churches to speak out against gay marriage or refuse to marry gay couples because instead of being against homosexuality they are now said to be against the de facto laws of the state of California. It is mandatory to accept homosexuality to be equal (socially) to heterosexual marriage. There is absolutely no difference between homosexual domestic partners and heterosexual marriages in CA. Proponents of prop 8 are worried that its failure to pass will result in further legislation bringing the laws further away from traditional Californian values.

I don't have a personal problem with homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle but when it tries to become the normal lifestyle and becomes legally imposed upon traditional communities, I get a little agitated. The main argument for prop 8 is that California will become like Massachusetts. In MA, children as young as 2nd grade are taught that it is as normal for a girl to marry a girl as a girl marrying a boy. This has caused sexual confusion (understandably) for some of those children. Parents cannot decide whether or not their child is subject to that lesson because it is part of Massachusetts state curriculum.

Prop 8 has no mention of schools or a change in curriculum for California, but neither did the the state constitutional amendment in Massachusetts, it was a gateway for further homosexual legislation.

If prop 8 fails to pass, what next? 4 million CA voters decided against gay marriage once already but the courts decided to make a de facto law anyway. Can I form a group of people that want our alternative lifestyles made legal? I could have a court case go to the supreme court in CA saying that it is unconstitutional to deny me the right to marry my seventeen wives. Voters in california are against polygamy and bestiality but the courts can override their opinions and make de facto laws based on the 14th amendment.