NATION

PASSWORD

Should Students be Expelled for Religious/Sexual Beliefs?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should students be expelled for religious/sexual beliefs?

No to expulsion.
145
40%
Yes to expulsion
73
20%
Expulsion only if those beliefs promote criminal acts.
148
40%
 
Total votes : 366

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:51 am

Gordonopia wrote:I do believe that Christians are persecuted for their beliefs all of the time.


Your 'belief' flies in the face of reality.

If there's any pressure against Christianity in this country, it's because of stupid comments like that - the massive majority complaining about being oppressed.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Zephie
Senator
 
Posts: 4548
Founded: Oct 30, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Zephie » Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:53 am

Senestrum wrote:
Gordonopia wrote:
Ryadn wrote:
Gordonopia wrote:
Unhealthy2 wrote:
Gordonopia wrote:Christians are routinely persecuted and ostracized while homosexuality is celebrated and accepted.


Where in the FUCK do you live? It sure ain't on Earth. You guys have had the keys to Western Civilization for like 1,500 years now. You're still in the overwhelming majority. There are still laws that force non-Christians to live by some of the laws of Christianity in some areas in the US. Basically, you're essentially saying the fact that you're being told that you're not allowed to force everyone to pay lipservice to Christianity and that the US can't treat Christianity different than any other religion means you're being persecuted.

Also, how many places is homosexuality celebrated? Far fewer than the number of churches, I'll tell you that much. Far fewer than the number of politicians that feel the need to constantly remind us that they're Christian. I'll tell you that.


I actually live in California and belong to a church that strongly supported the anti-gay marriage initiative in 2008. After the passage of Proposition 8, individuals who hold family values sacred were mocked and belittled routinely. Also, homosexuality is celebrated everywhere. I have already stated this. It is celebrated in the media, on college campuses, in public schools and even in some workplaces. Finally, I have no problem discussing this with you or anyone else on this forum. Obviously, we disagree and that is ok. However, I would ask you to refrain from using profanity when talking to me. I haven't cursed at you and I really don't appreciate it. I'm not sure how old you are, but I am an adult and am more than capable of discussion without resorting to insults or other inflammatory speech. Thanks.


People who voted for Prop 8 do not 'hold family values sacred'. They hold their own interpretation of what 'should be' above everyone else's, and then cry because people call them out for the blatant bigotry they practice.


Again, I am sorry to point out the blatant flaw in your statement, but I must. Proposition 8 was a large step in the right direction. While it is fashionable to mock Christians and the deeply held beliefs about morality that they hold sacred, I and others who hold those beliefs are derided and ostracized. Who's the bigot now? While I find the practice of homosexuality evil and deeply disturbing, I nevertheless defend the right of those who hold positions contrary to mine to express them freely. My issue is that Christians are not allowed the same courtesy.

You aren't allowed the courtesy? What, do you pay any attention at all to anything beyond what your preacher tells you? Do you honestly believe that you are in some way being persecuted?

Fuck, you just recently got to express your beliefs by trampling all over the civil rights of an entire set of people, and have so far managed to get away with it. That's not something any other group of people in the US can say right now.

If I may butt in. From the way I see it, people who practice religion are downplayed as inferior because they believe in God, which atheists don't believe in (not sure if you are atheist or not) and I will have to agree with Gordonopia on this; especially on their comment about bigotry. It seems to me like when something like gay marriage pops up, the mentality is "If you don't support it, you are a hateful bigot that does not respect people's rights to do x or for x" or something along the lines of that, and their religion is heavily used as a means of attacking them. There are many people that feel the same way and they aren't religious, but they are still attacked as if they were religious.

I also don't see how gay marriage is a "civil right." The 13th and 14th amendment applies to everybody, gays aren't excluded in any way. The only thing I can think of that is part of the government that discriminates against gays is the military, but I am divided on that issue.


Grave_n_idle wrote:
Gordonopia wrote:I do believe that Christians are persecuted for their beliefs all of the time.


Your 'belief' flies in the face of reality.

If there's any pressure against Christianity in this country, it's because of stupid comments like that - the massive majority complaining about being oppressed.

I think your statement is false. It's the same thing with debates about race. Just replace Christianity with being white. I wish people would realize how they are being divided against each other.
Last edited by Zephie on Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.
Senestrum wrote:I just can't think of anything to say that wouldn't get me warned on this net-nanny forum.

User avatar
Senestrum
Senator
 
Posts: 4691
Founded: Sep 15, 2007
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Senestrum » Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:53 am

Gordonopia wrote:
Senestrum wrote:
Gordonopia wrote:
Ryadn wrote:
Gordonopia wrote:
Unhealthy2 wrote:
Gordonopia wrote:Christians are routinely persecuted and ostracized while homosexuality is celebrated and accepted.


Where in the FUCK do you live? It sure ain't on Earth. You guys have had the keys to Western Civilization for like 1,500 years now. You're still in the overwhelming majority. There are still laws that force non-Christians to live by some of the laws of Christianity in some areas in the US. Basically, you're essentially saying the fact that you're being told that you're not allowed to force everyone to pay lipservice to Christianity and that the US can't treat Christianity different than any other religion means you're being persecuted.

Also, how many places is homosexuality celebrated? Far fewer than the number of churches, I'll tell you that much. Far fewer than the number of politicians that feel the need to constantly remind us that they're Christian. I'll tell you that.


I actually live in California and belong to a church that strongly supported the anti-gay marriage initiative in 2008. After the passage of Proposition 8, individuals who hold family values sacred were mocked and belittled routinely. Also, homosexuality is celebrated everywhere. I have already stated this. It is celebrated in the media, on college campuses, in public schools and even in some workplaces. Finally, I have no problem discussing this with you or anyone else on this forum. Obviously, we disagree and that is ok. However, I would ask you to refrain from using profanity when talking to me. I haven't cursed at you and I really don't appreciate it. I'm not sure how old you are, but I am an adult and am more than capable of discussion without resorting to insults or other inflammatory speech. Thanks.


People who voted for Prop 8 do not 'hold family values sacred'. They hold their own interpretation of what 'should be' above everyone else's, and then cry because people call them out for the blatant bigotry they practice.


Again, I am sorry to point out the blatant flaw in your statement, but I must. Proposition 8 was a large step in the right direction. While it is fashionable to mock Christians and the deeply held beliefs about morality that they hold sacred, I and others who hold those beliefs are derided and ostracized. Who's the bigot now? While I find the practice of homosexuality evil and deeply disturbing, I nevertheless defend the right of those who hold positions contrary to mine to express them freely. My issue is that Christians are not allowed the same courtesy.

You aren't allowed the courtesy? What, do you pay any attention at all to anything beyond what your preacher tells you? Do you honestly believe that you are in some way being persecuted?

Fuck, you just recently got to express your beliefs by trampling all over the civil rights of an entire set of people, and have so far managed to get away with it. That's not something any other group of people in the US can say right now.


I do believe that Christians are persecuted for their beliefs all of the time. Society is replete with examples ranging from public school curriculum, treatment of individuals of faith with scorn and contempt by the media and by an increasingly secular society, bogus separation of church and state claims etc. Also, what "civil rights" are you referring to? I know that that is a popular buzzword that is thrown around by pro-gay liberals all of the time, but it fundamentally lacks substance. Even if I did buy that argument, which I don't, that is a two way street. My civil rights are violated when I am forced to accept homosexuality in a public school, or at diversity training at the workplace, or when I am told that my deeply held beliefs are stupid and that by not supporting sin I am somehow a bad person. Funny that no one acknowledges the blatant discrimination that people of faith experience on a daily basis, but are quick to come to the rescue of homosexual "victims". Victims of what? Not getting their way? Not being 100% successful in corrupting the family? Hmmmmm.


You have won the argument, as I cannot even begin to articulate how illogical, bizarre, and alien your viewpoint is to me. I just can't think of anything to say that wouldn't get me warned on this net-nanny forum.
Last edited by Senestrum on Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Need help with lineart or technical drawings? Want comments and critique? Or do you just want to show off?
If so, join Lineartinc today, Nationstates' only lineart community!
We welcome people of any skill level, from first-timers to veteran artists.

User avatar
Soheran
Minister
 
Posts: 3444
Founded: Jun 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Soheran » Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:59 am

Zephie wrote: From the way I see it, people who practice religion are downplayed as inferior because they believe in God, which atheists don't believe in (not sure if you are atheist or not)


Wait, for real?

How many open atheists are there in the US Congress? How many open Christians are there? Do you realize that atheists are among the least popular groups in the country, according to poll data?

and I will have to agree with Gordonopia on this; especially on their comment about bigotry. It seems to me like when something like gay marriage pops up, the mentality is "If you don't support it, you are a hateful bigot that does not respect people's rights to do x or for x" or something along the lines of that, and their religion is heavily used as a means of attacking them. There are many people that feel the same way and they aren't religious, but they are still attacked as if they were religious.


Nobody attacks same-sex marriage opponents because of their religion--well, arrogant militant atheists like me might attack them because of their religion, but for reasons independent of the ridiculousness of their opposition to same-sex marriage. We might well say, however, that their religious beliefs should not dictate public policy.

I also don't see how gay marriage is a "civil right." The 13th and 14th amendment applies to everybody, gays aren't excluded in any way.


That's exactly why same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected.

Just replace Christianity with being white.


Yes, white people and Christians, our country's most notably marginalized groups.

Wow, you people live on a strange planet.

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:00 am

Soheran wrote:Yes, white people and Christians, our country's most notably marginalized groups.

Wow, you people live on a strange planet.


Fatality.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Zephie
Senator
 
Posts: 4548
Founded: Oct 30, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Zephie » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:00 am

Soheran wrote:
Wait, for real?

How many open atheists are there in the US Congress? How many open Christians are there? Do you realize that atheists are among the least popular groups in the country, according to poll data?

I never said atheists were never attacked. But from my experience, I see atheists provoking it. We have freedom of religion in the U.S I don't see why everyone can't just respect that.
When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.
Senestrum wrote:I just can't think of anything to say that wouldn't get me warned on this net-nanny forum.

User avatar
Delator
Minister
 
Posts: 2223
Founded: Nov 29, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Delator » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:00 am

Gordonopia wrote:I do believe that Christians are persecuted for their beliefs all of the time.


"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Society is replete with examples ranging from public school curriculum


Which, last I checked, forces people to learn all about Christian revialism in history...

treatment of individuals of faith with scorn and contempt by the media


Only the ones who talk out their own ass

and by an increasingly secular society, bogus separation of church and state claims etc


...would you rather Catholics and Protestants start killing each other again?

Also, what "civil rights" are you referring to? I know that that is a popular buzzword that is thrown around by pro-gay liberals all of the time, but it fundamentally lacks substance.


No it doesn't...if you were paying attention, you'd know exactly to what is being referred.

Even if I did buy that argument, which I don't, that is a two way street. My civil rights are violated when I am forced to accept homosexuality in a public school


No they aren't

or at diversity training at the workplace


Nope...

or when I am told that my deeply held beliefs are stupid and that by not supporting sin I am somehow a bad person.


Wrong again.

There's no such thing as a right to not be offended. That you keep equating the gay rights movement with such a concept simply proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

Funny that no one acknowledges the blatant discrimination that people of faith experience on a daily basis


I acknowledge it all the time...I just use a proper definition of "discrimination"

but are quick to come to the rescue of homosexual "victims". Victims of what? Not getting their way?


Victims of people who insist that they have the right to tell others what to do...

I'm sure you'll misinterpret that statement, and then apply it falsely to Christians, as if the majority is telling them they can't go to church.

Not being 100% successful in corrupting the family? Hmmmmm.


Who's family? Yours?
Those that seek to place heel upon the throat of Liberty will fall to the cry of Freedom!

User avatar
Ryadn
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8028
Founded: Sep 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Ryadn » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:02 am

Zephie wrote:
Soheran wrote:
Wait, for real?

How many open atheists are there in the US Congress? How many open Christians are there? Do you realize that atheists are among the least popular groups in the country, according to poll data?

I never said atheists were never attacked. But from my experience, I see atheists provoking it. We have freedom of religion in the U.S I don't see why everyone can't just respect that.


Neither do I. My religion is perfectly okay with two consenting adults entering into matrimony, but other people's religions won't let me. Who's disrespectful?
"I hate you! I HATE you collectivist society. You can't tell me what to do, you're not my REAL legitimate government. As soon as my band takes off, and I invent a perpetual motion machine, I am SO out of here!" - Neo Art

"But please, explain how a condom breaking is TOTALLY different from a tire getting blown out. I mean, in one case, a piece of rubber you're relying on to remain intact so that your risk of negative consequences won't significantly increase breaks through no inherent fault of your own, and in the other case, a piece of rubber you're relying on to remain intact so that your risk of negative consequences won't significantly increase breaks through no inherent fault of your own." - The Norwegian Blue

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:02 am

Zephie wrote:I never said atheists were never attacked. But from my experience, I see atheists provoking it.


By not-believing-in-your-god?

The scoundrels.

Zephie wrote:We have freedom of religion in the U.S I don't see why everyone can't just respect that.


Freedom of religion doesn't mean everyone has to believe the same thing.

Kind of surprised to have to explain that.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Dagnia
Senator
 
Posts: 3924
Founded: Jul 27, 2004
New York Times Democracy

Postby Dagnia » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:05 am

I don't like the double standard they are imposing on this young woman, and think she should not be expelled. However, as a gay man, I am worried about what might happen when she actually becomes a councilor. If a young confused person comes to her, will she tell him/her "Your feelings are evil, wrong and unnatural. Here is a copy of the Bible. I already have Leviticus bookmarked for you."? Or will she non-judgmentally help this person sort out their feelings, as a councilor should? It is kind of like trusting someone like Sonia "Wise Latina" Sotomayor to make judgments based on the constitution, not putting any of her own beliefs into the judgment.

That said, I hope she is not expelled or forced into any kind of "deprogramming". These kinds of double standards only give people a reason to hate us so passionately.
The world's collective hypocrisy when it comes to trying to take a swipe at Russia when their own backyards are out of sorts knows no bounds.

User avatar
Ryadn
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8028
Founded: Sep 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Ryadn » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:06 am

How about we compromise:

You can revile and ridicule me for my sexuality. You can call me a sinner and tell me I'm going to hell unless I repent. You spit on the ground when you see me out on the street with my girlfriend. You can call me a dyke. You can tell your children to stay away from me because I might turn them gay. Is there more? You can ban me from your church. Whatever kind of personal condemnation you want to level at me, you've got it.

In return, you'll stop denying me equal protection under the law and allow me to marry a consenting adult of MY choosing.

Fair enough?
"I hate you! I HATE you collectivist society. You can't tell me what to do, you're not my REAL legitimate government. As soon as my band takes off, and I invent a perpetual motion machine, I am SO out of here!" - Neo Art

"But please, explain how a condom breaking is TOTALLY different from a tire getting blown out. I mean, in one case, a piece of rubber you're relying on to remain intact so that your risk of negative consequences won't significantly increase breaks through no inherent fault of your own, and in the other case, a piece of rubber you're relying on to remain intact so that your risk of negative consequences won't significantly increase breaks through no inherent fault of your own." - The Norwegian Blue

User avatar
Ermarian
Minister
 
Posts: 2783
Founded: Jan 11, 2004
New York Times Democracy

Postby Ermarian » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:06 am

I actually live in California and belong to a church that strongly supported the anti-gay marriage initiative in 2008. After the passage of Proposition 8, individuals who hold family values sacred were mocked and belittled routinely.


After your spiteful petty vendetta against human rights was successful, it turned out that there were people who did not like this, and this means you are being persecuted.

I have no words for you.
The Endless Empire of Ermarian | Jolt Archives | Encyclopedia Ermariana | ( -6.38 | -8.56 ) | Luna is best pony.
"Without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people - first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy." -Einstein
"Is there a topic for discussion here, or did you just want to be wrong in public?" -Ifreann

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:08 am

Dagnia wrote:I don't like the double standard they are imposing on this young woman, and think she should not be expelled. However, as a gay man, I am worried about what might happen when she actually becomes a councilor. If a young confused person comes to her, will she tell him/her "Your feelings are evil, wrong and unnatural. Here is a copy of the Bible. I already have Leviticus bookmarked for you."? Or will she non-judgmentally help this person sort out their feelings, as a councilor should? It is kind of like trusting someone like Sonia "Wise Latina" Sotomayor to make judgments based on the constitution, not putting any of her own beliefs into the judgment.

That said, I hope she is not expelled or forced into any kind of "deprogramming". These kinds of double standards only give people a reason to hate us so passionately.


If the student was studying to be a nurse, and was arguing that her belief structure said rape could be used to 'correct' homosexuality, would you consider it a double standard to take issue with THAT belief structure being pushed in THAT career?
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Ryadn
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8028
Founded: Sep 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Ryadn » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:11 am

Dagnia wrote:I don't like the double standard they are imposing on this young woman, and think she should not be expelled. However, as a gay man, I am worried about what might happen when she actually becomes a councilor. If a young confused person comes to her, will she tell him/her "Your feelings are evil, wrong and unnatural. Here is a copy of the Bible. I already have Leviticus bookmarked for you."? Or will she non-judgmentally help this person sort out their feelings, as a councilor should? It is kind of like trusting someone like Sonia "Wise Latina" Sotomayor to make judgments based on the constitution, not putting any of her own beliefs into the judgment.

That said, I hope she is not expelled or forced into any kind of "deprogramming". These kinds of double standards only give people a reason to hate us so passionately.


The situation you posed absolutely happens in the real world. In fact, a psychiatrist I'd had for a year or so moved offices, and at my first appointment in his new office with a bunch of other mental health professionals, I picked up what ostensibly looked like a sports magazine, only to find an article in it about "why homosexuality was unnatural." You can imagine how shocked and alarmed I was. It was like walking in and seeing a swastika prominently displayed above the front desk.

They hate us anyway. I, for one, am pretty well sick and smiling nicely and asking if I might please be treated like an equal human now, if it isn't too much trouble.
"I hate you! I HATE you collectivist society. You can't tell me what to do, you're not my REAL legitimate government. As soon as my band takes off, and I invent a perpetual motion machine, I am SO out of here!" - Neo Art

"But please, explain how a condom breaking is TOTALLY different from a tire getting blown out. I mean, in one case, a piece of rubber you're relying on to remain intact so that your risk of negative consequences won't significantly increase breaks through no inherent fault of your own, and in the other case, a piece of rubber you're relying on to remain intact so that your risk of negative consequences won't significantly increase breaks through no inherent fault of your own." - The Norwegian Blue

User avatar
Soheran
Minister
 
Posts: 3444
Founded: Jun 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Soheran » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:17 am

Gordonopia wrote:Also, what "civil rights" are you referring to?


Prop. 8 specifically deprived same-sex couples of the civil right to marry, which was protected by the California Constitution (see In Re Marriage Cases) and is protected by the US Constitution (via the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, for the most straightforward argument.)

I know that that is a popular buzzword that is thrown around by pro-gay liberals all of the time, but it fundamentally lacks substance.


Because you say so?

Even if I did buy that argument, which I don't, that is a two way street.


Yes, it is. I don't approve of Christian marriage--I think traditional Christian sexual morality is bankrupt and tends to cause harm to the people who adhere to it--but I support your right to marry anyway. Why don't you support mine?

My civil rights are violated when I am forced to accept homosexuality in a public school, or at diversity training at the workplace, or when I am told that my deeply held beliefs are stupid and that by not supporting sin I am somehow a bad person.


Actually, none of these violate your civil rights.

1. Translating "forced to accept" to "forced to hear about and accept the existence of", even to the extent this actually occurs (not much), it is in no way a violation of your civil rights, any more than it is a violation of the rights of racists to teach black history in public school.

2. "[D]iversity training at the workplace" does not even conceivably violate your civil rights! Where on Earth does this notion come from? Companies that want to attract LGBT customers and employees ensure that their employees treat LGBT customers and co-workers fairly. So what? They are not making you renounce your religious beliefs, or have sex with men yourself.

3. Your civil rights are never violated by people (correctly) arguing that your eagerness to deny rights to same-sex couples is deeply immoral and objectionable.

Funny that no one acknowledges the blatant discrimination that people of faith experience on a daily basis, but are quick to come to the rescue of homosexual "victims".


Funny how you elevate your ludicrous fantasies of persecution over the actual suffering of and legal discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Actually, not funny. More "contemptible."

Victims of what? Not getting their way? Not being 100% successful in corrupting the family? Hmmmmm.


Um. Victims of discriminatory marriage laws, federally and in forty-five states, that assign second-class citizenship to same-sex couples (and people who want to enter into same-sex relationships more broadly) and deal material economic harm. Victims of employment discrimination, from which there is no legal protection on the basis of sexual orientation in most states (religion, of course, is protected, actually more so than other categories because employees must accommodate it.) Victims of hate crimes. And those are just the respects that concern public policy. We could talk about culture, too, about the social forces that marginalize gays and lesbians, that lead to the hugely disproportionate number of LGBT homeless youth, that cause so many gays and lesbians still to grow up closeted and self-hating.

But you aren't interested in hearing any of this, of course. The only narrative you are willing to listen to, clearly, is your own: a fantastic world wherein gays are greedy and selfish whiners with all the power, persecuting the poor traditional Christians whose sincerely-held moral beliefs mandate that they... um... take away marriage rights from other people?

User avatar
Gordonopia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 577
Founded: Oct 16, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Gordonopia » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:17 am

Ryadn wrote:How about we compromise:

You can revile and ridicule me for my sexuality. You can call me a sinner and tell me I'm going to hell unless I repent. You spit on the ground when you see me out on the street with my girlfriend. You can call me a dyke. You can tell your children to stay away from me because I might turn them gay. Is there more? You can ban me from your church. Whatever kind of personal condemnation you want to level at me, you've got it.

In return, you'll stop denying me equal protection under the law and allow me to marry a consenting adult of MY choosing.

Fair enough?


I wouldn't advocate doing any of those things to you or anyone else. I respect an individuals right to choose who they want to be with. I'm not advocating any type of law to change your right to choose who you are with. That is between you and God. However, I do passionately object to homosexuals being able to "marry" each other. If two consenting adults wish to have a domestic partnership, civil union or whatever, that is certainly there choice. If they wish to be able to will their property to each other, or have hospital visitation rights, great. My issue is with marriage. Marriage is, and always has been, a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Stretching the law to fundamentally redefine marriage is my issue.

So, how about we reverse that compromise? I will never disrespect a homosexual (even though I disagree with their lifestyle choice). I will also never exclude a homosexual from their God-given right to exercise their free will. Having homosexual thoughts is not a sin, acting on them is. However, as I stated above, that is between the individual and their maker.

In return for that, you can have ALL of the same rights, privileges, responsibilities etc. of a married couple, just call it something else. That is the core of the issue. That is what Proposition 8 was fought over. It really is that simple.
President of the World Assembly Conservative Union. Founder and WA Delegate of Moralistic Autocracies .

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:21 am

Gordonopia wrote: Marriage is, and always has been, a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Stretching the law to fundamentally redefine marriage is my issue.


Simply not true. Not even vaguely true.

Your ceremony at your church? Sure - that's all about you and your god. Marriage? A contract - and thus - a legal arrangement, not a religious one.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Unchecked Expansion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5599
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unchecked Expansion » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:21 am

Gordonopia wrote:
Ryadn wrote:How about we compromise:

You can revile and ridicule me for my sexuality. You can call me a sinner and tell me I'm going to hell unless I repent. You spit on the ground when you see me out on the street with my girlfriend. You can call me a dyke. You can tell your children to stay away from me because I might turn them gay. Is there more? You can ban me from your church. Whatever kind of personal condemnation you want to level at me, you've got it.

In return, you'll stop denying me equal protection under the law and allow me to marry a consenting adult of MY choosing.

Fair enough?


I wouldn't advocate doing any of those things to you or anyone else. I respect an individuals right to choose who they want to be with. I'm not advocating any type of law to change your right to choose who you are with. That is between you and God. However, I do passionately object to homosexuals being able to "marry" each other. If two consenting adults wish to have a domestic partnership, civil union or whatever, that is certainly there choice. If they wish to be able to will their property to each other, or have hospital visitation rights, great. My issue is with marriage. Marriage is, and always has been, a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Stretching the law to fundamentally redefine marriage is my issue.

So, how about we reverse that compromise? I will never disrespect a homosexual (even though I disagree with their lifestyle choice). I will also never exclude a homosexual from their God-given right to exercise their free will. Having homosexual thoughts is not a sin, acting on them is. However, as I stated above, that is between the individual and their maker.

In return for that, you can have ALL of the same rights, privileges, responsibilities etc. of a married couple, just call it something else. That is the core of the issue. That is what Proposition 8 was fought over. It really is that simple.

Why is it sacred? Because your church tells you so? What about the churches open to same sex marriage? Don't you feel it is wrong to oppress them because of your beliefs? Why, that would fly in the face of the freedom of religion you hold so dear.
Freedom of religion means that your idea of sin does not and should not affect anyone but yourself. You have no moral grounds to argue for laws based on your personal idea of what's sinful

User avatar
Soheran
Minister
 
Posts: 3444
Founded: Jun 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Soheran » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:21 am

Zephie wrote:But from my experience, I see atheists provoking it.


:roll:

Atheists, after millenia of literally being told that we will justly suffer eternal torment for our beliefs, have finally, in a few cases, stopped being perfectly respectful of people's religious beliefs--and thus we are "provoking it"?

User avatar
Soheran
Minister
 
Posts: 3444
Founded: Jun 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Soheran » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:27 am

Gordonopia wrote:Marriage is, and always has been, a sacred bond between a man and a woman.


Maybe in your church. In the law, it is not particularly "sacred"--for instance, atheists can marry, divorcees can marry, people who have no intention of following religious dictates of sexual morality can marry, there is no test--and historically, some cultures have accepted same-sex marriages, and plenty also have accepted polygamous ones.

Stretching the law to fundamentally redefine marriage is my issue.


How does same-sex marriage "redefine marriage"? I agree that it ends a traditional exclusion, but that is not the same thing: ending bans on interracial marriage also did. What is it about the essence of marriage that same-sex couples violate?

In return for that, you can have ALL of the same rights, privileges, responsibilities etc. of a married couple, just call it something else. That is the core of the issue.


1. No. The institution of marriage is not a vehicle for you to maintain your own privilege, or to express your moral disapproval of other people.

2. Do you really mean that? If you do, I hope you make quite clear to the Republicans in Congress that they should support granting the federal rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, because they seem to have no intention of supporting that right now.

User avatar
Zephie
Senator
 
Posts: 4548
Founded: Oct 30, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Zephie » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:29 am

Soheran wrote:
Zephie wrote:But from my experience, I see atheists provoking it.


:roll:

Atheists, after millenia of literally being told that we will justly suffer eternal torment for our beliefs, have finally, in a few cases, stopped being perfectly respectful of people's religious beliefs--and thus we are "provoking it"?

You are collectivizing it throughout history; I am talking about the present. The past is irrelevant.
When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.
Senestrum wrote:I just can't think of anything to say that wouldn't get me warned on this net-nanny forum.

User avatar
Gordonopia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 577
Founded: Oct 16, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Gordonopia » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:30 am

Unchecked Expansion wrote:
Gordonopia wrote:
Ryadn wrote:How about we compromise:

You can revile and ridicule me for my sexuality. You can call me a sinner and tell me I'm going to hell unless I repent. You spit on the ground when you see me out on the street with my girlfriend. You can call me a dyke. You can tell your children to stay away from me because I might turn them gay. Is there more? You can ban me from your church. Whatever kind of personal condemnation you want to level at me, you've got it.

In return, you'll stop denying me equal protection under the law and allow me to marry a consenting adult of MY choosing.

Fair enough?


I wouldn't advocate doing any of those things to you or anyone else. I respect an individuals right to choose who they want to be with. I'm not advocating any type of law to change your right to choose who you are with. That is between you and God. However, I do passionately object to homosexuals being able to "marry" each other. If two consenting adults wish to have a domestic partnership, civil union or whatever, that is certainly there choice. If they wish to be able to will their property to each other, or have hospital visitation rights, great. My issue is with marriage. Marriage is, and always has been, a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Stretching the law to fundamentally redefine marriage is my issue.

So, how about we reverse that compromise? I will never disrespect a homosexual (even though I disagree with their lifestyle choice). I will also never exclude a homosexual from their God-given right to exercise their free will. Having homosexual thoughts is not a sin, acting on them is. However, as I stated above, that is between the individual and their maker.

In return for that, you can have ALL of the same rights, privileges, responsibilities etc. of a married couple, just call it something else. That is the core of the issue. That is what Proposition 8 was fought over. It really is that simple.

Why is it sacred? Because your church tells you so? What about the churches open to same sex marriage? Don't you feel it is wrong to oppress them because of your beliefs? Why, that would fly in the face of the freedom of religion you hold so dear.
Freedom of religion means that your idea of sin does not and should not affect anyone but yourself. You have no moral grounds to argue for laws based on your personal idea of what's sinful


This is where it becomes difficult. What you call my "belief", I call fact. I don't believe marriage is sacred, it is sacred. I don't believe God created the earth, he did. In terms of matters of faith, to me they are black and white. Marriage is sacred because the Lord instituted it among his children for the purpose of procreation and the continuation of the family. Marriage is something that has, since the beginning of time, been sacred and is one of the central teachings of my faith. I don't have any personal ideas of what is sinful, I just know what is sinful. I know that may sound harsh or arrogant but, to me, my faith is truth. It is irritating to me to see others tell me that something is right, when I know that it is wrong.
President of the World Assembly Conservative Union. Founder and WA Delegate of Moralistic Autocracies .

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:32 am

Gordonopia wrote:
Unchecked Expansion wrote:
Gordonopia wrote:
Ryadn wrote:How about we compromise:

You can revile and ridicule me for my sexuality. You can call me a sinner and tell me I'm going to hell unless I repent. You spit on the ground when you see me out on the street with my girlfriend. You can call me a dyke. You can tell your children to stay away from me because I might turn them gay. Is there more? You can ban me from your church. Whatever kind of personal condemnation you want to level at me, you've got it.

In return, you'll stop denying me equal protection under the law and allow me to marry a consenting adult of MY choosing.

Fair enough?


I wouldn't advocate doing any of those things to you or anyone else. I respect an individuals right to choose who they want to be with. I'm not advocating any type of law to change your right to choose who you are with. That is between you and God. However, I do passionately object to homosexuals being able to "marry" each other. If two consenting adults wish to have a domestic partnership, civil union or whatever, that is certainly there choice. If they wish to be able to will their property to each other, or have hospital visitation rights, great. My issue is with marriage. Marriage is, and always has been, a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Stretching the law to fundamentally redefine marriage is my issue.

So, how about we reverse that compromise? I will never disrespect a homosexual (even though I disagree with their lifestyle choice). I will also never exclude a homosexual from their God-given right to exercise their free will. Having homosexual thoughts is not a sin, acting on them is. However, as I stated above, that is between the individual and their maker.

In return for that, you can have ALL of the same rights, privileges, responsibilities etc. of a married couple, just call it something else. That is the core of the issue. That is what Proposition 8 was fought over. It really is that simple.

Why is it sacred? Because your church tells you so? What about the churches open to same sex marriage? Don't you feel it is wrong to oppress them because of your beliefs? Why, that would fly in the face of the freedom of religion you hold so dear.
Freedom of religion means that your idea of sin does not and should not affect anyone but yourself. You have no moral grounds to argue for laws based on your personal idea of what's sinful


This is where it becomes difficult. What you call my "belief", I call fact. I don't believe marriage is sacred, it is sacred. I don't believe God created the earth, he did. In terms of matters of faith, to me they are black and white. Marriage is sacred because the Lord instituted it among his children for the purpose of procreation and the continuation of the family. Marriage is something that has, since the beginning of time, been sacred and is one of the central teachings of my faith. I don't have any personal ideas of what is sinful, I just know what is sinful. I know that may sound harsh or arrogant but, to me, my faith is truth. It is irritating to me to see others tell me that something is right, when I know that it is wrong.


Horseshit.

Even in the Bible, marriage isn't always sacred... nor between one man and one woman.

Let's not even get into you trying to impose your rules on others by trying to claim that your beliefs are better than anyone else's.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Soheran
Minister
 
Posts: 3444
Founded: Jun 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Soheran » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:33 am

Zephie wrote:You are collectivizing it throughout history; I am talking about the present. The past is irrelevant.


Yes, I suppose it is, when your aim is to adopt ideologically-convenient explanations rather than ones that actually accord with a fair interpretation of reality.

User avatar
Soheran
Minister
 
Posts: 3444
Founded: Jun 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Soheran » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:36 am

Gordonopia wrote:It is irritating to me to see others tell me that something is right, when I know that it is wrong.


...

You're going to be irritated a lot, then.

(It always amuses me how, in the modern era, moralistic religious people seem to embody exactly the kind of narcissistic relativism they so love to criticize secular society for.)
Last edited by Soheran on Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arisyan, Dexterra, Drachovia, Emotional Support Crocodile, Ethel mermania, Fartsniffage, Forsher, Gun Manufacturers, Heloin, Herrebrugh, Ifreann, Ikania, Kragholm Free States, Land of Conservation, Philjia, Spirit of Hope, Tarsonis, The Alma Mater, The Archregimancy, The Greater Nordics, The Jamesian Republic, Zebrania

Advertisement

Remove ads