At Day-Care: a nice story of homo families at play

[Jeremy 0]

I'd be on board with that, but we both know that the Christianist knuckle-draggers who get fired up about this issue don't care about the civil union vs. marriage designation and they just want to discriminate against gay people.

 

 

Prejudicial to the core of that word. No, you don't "know" that. You always assume that. That's the problem. You are prejudicial with regards to this topic.

 

 

I don't know how prejudicial MDC is in regards to Christians in general (I think he's talking about a small subset of Christians, who are in fact being bigots, IMO), but I agree many of those that get fired up on this issue are usually looking to discriminate against gays, IMO. I think they really hope to "discriminate them straight."

 

There have been what, maybe 15 states give or take, that have proposed marriage amendments stating it being defined as being a man and woman only. Most of those ammendments also take the extra step to ALSO say that civil unions between same sex couples are not to be allowed, either. And NONE of them, to my knowledge defines marriage as being a man and woman only, but also gauratees civil unions to same sex couples. If it was really all about the word "marriage", why not say, no marriage for gay people, but at the same time we give them the same rights? It's always take, and no give. Those are clearly trying to discriminate, no?

[MDC 6,005]

I don't know how prejudicial MDC is in regards to Christians in general (I think he's talking about a small subset of Christians, who are in fact being bigots, IMO), but I agree many of those that get fired up on this issue are usually looking to discriminate against gays, IMO. I think they really hope to "discriminate them straight."

 

There have been what, maybe 15 states give or take, that have proposed marriage amendments stating it being defined as being a man and woman only. Most of those ammendments also take the extra step to ALSO say that civil unions between same sex couples are not to be allowed, either. And NONE of them, to my knowledge defines marriage as being a man and woman only, but also gauratees civil unions to same sex couples. If it was really all about the word "marriage", why not say, no marriage for gay people, but at the same time we give them the same rights? It's always take, and no give. Those are clearly trying to discriminate, no?

 

You are correct - I was talking about a subsect of Christian voters for whom gay marriage is a big issue. And in those states with gay marriage bans on the ballot, to my knowledge none of them have offered civil unions. I'll take davebg at his word that he'd be OK with civil unions for same-sex couples. But deep down, I think he knows that the Christianists who voted down gay marriage would vote against civil unions for gays, too. Just look at their nonsensical arguments against it. Has anyone ever come up with a compelling reason why gays shouldn't get married?

[brinett9 0]

Has anyone ever come up with a compelling reason why gays shouldn't get married?

"It's Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve!"

 

I don't really know how that's relevant, but it's catchy.

[torridjoe 41]

Yeah? And what if the case goes before the 9th Circuit? Those whackjobs just gave the to reciting Islamic prayers in CA schools. So don't talk about "zero chance" of them winning.

 

what's wrong with reciting Islamic prayers in CA schools, and how is it unconstitutional? I agree with this:

 

Sho Nuff:

You must allow people to pray on their own time...that is as much of the constitution as keeping the school from sponsoring it is. You cannot prevent the free exercise thereof.

 

 

 

...I don't even think it needs to be on "their own time." If they want to pray during a math test, more power to them. On individual initiative, where individuals are absolutely free to be a part of it or not---knock yourself out, kids.

[davebg 0]

You are correct - I was talking about a subsect of Christian voters for whom gay marriage is a big issue. And in those states with gay marriage bans on the ballot, to my knowledge none of them have offered civil unions. I'll take davebg at his word that he'd be OK with civil unions for same-sex couples. But deep down, I think he knows that the Christianists who voted down gay marriage would vote against civil unions for gays, too. Just look at their nonsensical arguments against it. Has anyone ever come up with a compelling reason why gays shouldn't get married?

That's why I have my own opinions on this stuff and leave the sheep to Jebus.

[MDC 6,005]

"It's Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve!"

 

I don't really know how that's relevant, but it's catchy.

 

Yep. Some other typical excuses:

 

1. "It threatens the sanctity of marriage!" How exactly does anyone else's marriage tarnish your own?

2. "If you let the gays get married, soon people will want to marry their siblings / dog / cat, etc." Animals can't consent, and incest has a victim (the potential child).

3. "The guv-mint shouldn't condone it!" Since when does the government legally recognizing a union = an endorsement of that union? It never occurred to me that the government condones any marriage, other than to recognize it as a legally binding union that comes with some rights.

 

etc. etc.

 

On the other hand, it has concrete benefits for society by encouraging monogamy and stability, and it's frankly just the right thing to do from a basic human rights perspective.

[Strike 4,120]

what's wrong with reciting Islamic prayers in CA schools, and how is it unconstitutional?

 

Utterly pathetic if you think that ruling should stand.

[torridjoe 41]

Utterly pathetic if you think that ruling should stand.

 

so no answer from you, despite once again not being the person I was addressing. You need help.

[davebg 0]

what's wrong with reciting Islamic prayers in CA schools, and how is it unconstitutional? I agree with this:

Two weeks of Islamic cultural education...part of the curriculum involves children having to recite Islamic prayers.

 

Nothing wrong with that? No obvious violations of the separation of church and state?

 

What's next? A wafer and a prayer? Mock circumcisions?

 

What happened to the good ol' days when you could learn all you needed to about another people by building a diorama out of an old shoebox?

[Strike 4,120]

so no answer from you, despite once again not being the person I was addressing. You need help.

 

Uh, I hate to be the one to tell you this but, like this is a message board where anyone can answer any post, like you did to involve yourself in this thread. If you don't want others responding to your stupidity send an E-mail and take the discussion offline. Of course, I'd hate to see everyone else deprived of your lunacy but if you feel that strongly about it feel free to do so.

[torridjoe 41]

Two weeks of Islamic cultural education...part of the curriculum involves children having to recite Islamic prayers.

 

Nothing wrong with that? No obvious violations of the separation of church and state?

 

What's next? A wafer and a prayer? Mock circumcisions?

 

What happened to the good ol' days when you could learn all you needed to about another people by building a diorama out of an old shoebox?

 

No violations at all. Teaching religion as history and culture has always been allowed, even encouraged as it is in California.

 

Are you saying that you'd be against teaching Christian principles and practices in a similar unit of world history class?

[Birdseed 1]

Animals can't consent,

 

Obviously, you haven't tried peanut butter.

[torridjoe 41]

Uh, I hate to be the one to tell you this but, like this is a message board where anyone can answer any post, like you did to involve yourself in this thread. If you don't want others responding to your stupidity send an E-mail and take the discussion offline. Of course, I'd hate to see everyone else deprived of your lunacy but if you feel that strongly about it feel free to do so.

 

once again, fully nonresponsive.

If you don't want others asking "who the hell was talking to you?" send an email and take the discussion offline.

[Fumbleweed 457]

You are correct - I was talking about a subsect of Christian voters for whom gay marriage is a big issue. And in those states with gay marriage bans on the ballot, to my knowledge none of them have offered civil unions. I'll take davebg at his word that he'd be OK with civil unions for same-sex couples. But deep down, I think he knows that the Christianists who voted down gay marriage would vote against civil unions for gays, too. Just look at their nonsensical arguments against it. Has anyone ever come up with a compelling reason why gays shouldn't get married?

 

Again, you're presuming. You can state voting facts and that's fine. But, stick to facts. When you attempt to have the audacity to judge the motives of another's mind/heart, you are pre-judging them entirely.

 

This is a big issue for me, yes. Am I seeking to punish gays? No. Do I believe civil unions would be o.k.? Yes. I guess I don't fit your paint stroke.......

[Strike 4,120]

once again, fully nonresponsive.

If you don't want others asking "who the hell was talking to you?" send an email and take the discussion offline.

 

I was completely responsive. Your response to me was unresponsive. Asking someone not to respond to you on an open forum is stupid, and I was simply pointing out the method you can use to avoid such a situation if you truly don't want it. I don't care if you respond to me so the response above is completely nonresponsive.

[Fumbleweed 457]

It's true in Oregon. Measure 36 passed with explicit promises that it had nothing to do with civil unions. Now that the state is seriously discussing those civil unions, the very same people are claiming it would be a rebuke to the will of the people expressed in M36. It's anti-gay legislation explicitly designed to discriminate, plain and simple.

 

I don't understand your response. How does your response apply to what I had said?

[davebg 0]

No violations at all. Teaching religion as history and culture has always been allowed, even encouraged as it is in California.

 

Are you saying that you'd be against teaching Christian principles and practices in a similar unit of world history class?

It is my understanding that in addition to sitting in a classroom and "learning" about Islam, they are being required to wear a robe, adopt a Muslim name, stage their own jihad (not sure exactly what they meant w/that one ), they are taught to pray "in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" and are instructed to chant, "Praise to Allah, Lord of Creation."

 

And the course is required...it is not an elective.

 

That goes WAAAAAY beyond just "teaching religion as history and cluture."

 

If a teacher/school wanted to teach children about Christian principles and practices by making them recite prayers and by staging a mock Crusades or Crucifixion, then I'd have a problem w/that too.

[torridjoe 41]

I was completely responsive. Your response to me was unresponsive. Asking someone not to respond to you on an open forum is stupid, and I was simply pointing out the method you can use to avoid such a situation if you truly don't want it. I don't care if you respond to me so the response above is completely nonresponsive.

 

explain which words in this paragraph actually mean "Islam" or "school" or "lawsuit":

 

Uh, I hate to be the one to tell you this but, like this is a message board where anyone can answer any post, like you did to involve yourself in this thread. If you don't want others responding to your stupidity send an E-mail and take the discussion offline. Of course, I'd hate to see everyone else deprived of your lunacy but if you feel that strongly about it feel free to do so.

 

if you can point them out, I'll say you were responsive.

 

I didn't ask someone not to respond, I noted that no one was asking you the question.

[Fumbleweed 457]

I don't know how prejudicial MDC is in regards to Christians in general (I think he's talking about a small subset of Christians, who are in fact being bigots, IMO), but I agree many of those that get fired up on this issue are usually looking to discriminate against gays, IMO. I think they really hope to "discriminate them straight."

 

There have been what, maybe 15 states give or take, that have proposed marriage amendments stating it being defined as being a man and woman only. Most of those ammendments also take the extra step to ALSO say that civil unions between same sex couples are not to be allowed, either. And NONE of them, to my knowledge defines marriage as being a man and woman only, but also gauratees civil unions to same sex couples. If it was really all about the word "marriage", why not say, no marriage for gay people, but at the same time we give them the same rights? It's always take, and no give. Those are clearly trying to discriminate, no?

 

So, you're referring to two groups of people then..... 1. those that proposed/wrote the legislation and 2. those that voted for its approval.

 

Correct?

[torridjoe 41]

I don't understand your response. How does your response apply to what I had said?

 

that proponents of marriage bans typically claim that it's only about protecting marriage, but the truth is that they simply want to discriminate against gays.

[Fumbleweed 457]

that proponents of marriage bans typically claim that it's only about protecting marriage, but the truth is that they simply want to discriminate against gays.

 

And, how do you know "the truth" as you put it? You claim to know what the "truth" is....how did you arrive at that knowledge? How can you be certain what people actually want and don't want. I think you're presuming quite a bit in your statement.

[Strike 4,120]

explain which words in this paragraph actually mean "Islam" or "school" or "lawsuit":

if you can point them out, I'll say you were responsive.

 

I didn't ask someone not to respond, I noted that no one was asking you the question.

 

Are you really this dumb? Both of those were responses to your assertion that you weren't addressing me. My previous post is the one that addresses the islam discussion you wanker. If you can't keep up get out, seriously.

[torridjoe 41]

It is my understanding that in addition to sitting in a classroom and "learning" about Islam, they are being required to wear a robe, adopt a Muslim name, stage their own jihad (not sure exactly what they meant w/that one ), they are taught to pray "in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" and are instructed to chant, "Praise to Allah, Lord of Creation."

 

And the course is required...it is not an elective.

 

That goes WAAAAAY beyond just "teaching religion as history and cluture."

 

If a teacher/school wanted to teach children about Christian principles and practices by making them recite prayers and by staging a mock Crusades or Crucifixion, then I'd have a problem w/that too.

 

not sure the Crusades and crucifixion part was serious, but the Court held in Brown that practices that are merely consistent or coincidental to actual religious practices, do not constitute an endorsement of religion. Florey also held that practices with religious meaning could still be taught.

 

 

 

Are you really this dumb? Both of those were responses to your assertion that you weren't addressing me. My previous post is the one that addresses the islam discussion you wanker. If you can't keep up get out, seriously.

 

short memory. This is the question you are being nonresponsive on:

 

what's wrong with reciting Islamic prayers in CA schools, and how is it unconstitutional?

 

And, how do you know "the truth" as you put it? You claim to know what the "truth" is....how did you arrive at that knowledge? How can you be certain what people actually want and don't want. I think you're presuming quite a bit in your statement.

 

I'm using their public statements, before and after the measure passed, made by the very same people.

[Strike 4,120]

short memory. This is the question you are being nonresponsive on:

 

what's wrong with reciting Islamic prayers in CA schools, and how is it unconstitutional?

 

I responded to that question appropriately. Of course, my response to that question, as I mentioned previously, is not what you quoted in your last post to me. Again, if you can't keep up, get out.

[torridjoe 41]

I responded to that question appropriately.

 

On some other board, maybe. Here at FFT you never answered the question.

[Jeremy 0]

So, you're referring to two groups of people then..... 1. those that proposed/wrote the legislation and 2. those that voted for its approval.

 

Correct?

 

Certainly those that propose the legislation that take the extra step to also exclude gays from receiving marriage benifits as part of a civil union. They're either wishing to discriminate against gays, or they're political opportunists.

 

Those that vote for it's approval are often in the same boat. Some who vote for it may be like you, in that they disapprove of gay marriage, but they would be ok with Civil Unions giving marriage rights. However, when in the voting booth, they'll vote for the bill that goes for the whole discrimination package because that's what was put in front of them. Personally, I find that kind of irresponsible and lazy. If you feel that way, vote "no" and force them to take the part of there that deals with denying marriage rights also.

 

Then there are those that flat out wish to discriminate against gays. They don't want gays to get married. They don't want them to be able to get marriage rights in the form of civil unions. In bars and family gatherings (like MDC said, there's one in every family), they make statements with regards to putting them all on an island together, removing them from society entirely. This is the kind of person we're talking about.

[Fumbleweed 457]

I'm using their public statements, before and after the measure passed, made by the very same people.

 

Who is they? I still think you're inferring something (possibly correct, possibly not) and then generalizing it to a larger group of people....something I very much disagree with on any level.

 

There are millions of proponents of gay marriage bans. You probably have heard public statements by less than .001 % of them. You can only say with certainty that those particular people feel the way that you are saying the entire group feels.

 

I would hope that I would not think I had an entire group of people "figured out" with respect to motives and intentions based upon the "public statements" of a few people. You need to learn to specifically assign responsibility for a position to a person or small group of persons rather than such a large group.

[Strike 4,120]

On some other board, maybe. Here at FFT you never answered the question.

 

If you want me to clarify my response say so. Quoting OTHER posts and asking where I address Islam in those posts is stupid, and that's what you did and what I've pointed out, now, three times.

[torridjoe 41]

Who is they? I still think you're inferring something (possibly correct, possibly not) and then generalizing it to a larger group of people....something I very much disagree with on any level.

 

There are millions of proponents of gay marriage bans. You probably have heard public statements by less than .001 % of them. You can only say with certainty that those particular people feel the way that you are saying the entire group feels.

 

I would hope that I would not think I had an entire group of people "figured out" with respect to motives and intentions based upon the "public statements" of a few people. You need to learn to specifically assign responsibility for a position to a person or small group of persons rather than such a large group.

 

I explained who "they" were--the chief petitioners of Measure 36, the gay marriage ban in OR. They are the ones responsible for the state of the law in OR currently.

 

 

If you want me to clarify my response say so. Quoting OTHER posts and asking where I address Islam in those posts is stupid, and that's what you did and what I've pointed out, now, three times.

 

don't clarify, just answer. You haven't come close so far.

[Fumbleweed 457]

Certainly those that propose the legislation that take the extra step to also exclude gays from receiving marriage benifits as part of a civil union. They're either wishing to discriminate against gays, or they're political opportunists.

 

Those that vote for it's approval are often in the same boat. Some who vote for it may be like you, in that they disapprove of gay marriage, but they would be ok with Civil Unions giving marriage rights. However, when in the voting booth, they'll vote for the bill that goes for the whole discrimination package because that's what was put in front of them. Personally, I find that kind of irresponsible and lazy. If you feel that way, vote "no" and force them to take the part of there that deals with denying marriage rights also.

 

Then there are those that flat out wish to discriminate against gays. They don't want gays to get married. They don't want them to be able to get marriage rights in the form of civil unions. In bars and family gatherings (like MDC said, there's one in every family), they make statements with regards to putting them all on an island together, removing them from society entirely. This is the kind of person we're talking about.

 

We agree on the first part...that is the legislators.

 

But, I think you're being a bit harsh on voters. Those who truly believe in keeping a traditional marriage definition intact are very cautious at this point about giving ground on the issue. At some point, I would hope that both groups can be respected and a middle ground solution figured out....but I don't think it's necessarily lazy or irresponsible. It's the fear of giving too much ground that prompts the voting...something I can understand, even if it's not a good long-term stance.

 

Just my take on the matter. I can see your points, too.

[Strike 4,120]

I explained who "they" were--the chief petitioners of Measure 36, the gay marriage ban in OR. They are the ones responsible for the state of the law in OR currently.

don't clarify, just answer. You haven't come close so far.

 

I think my statement was reasonable. If you want me to explain why I think you're pathetic if you think the ruling should stand say so. It doesn't change the fact that you quoted OTHER statements that had nothing to do with that one and asked where Islam was in them, which is stupid.

[Fumbleweed 457]

I explained who "they" were--the chief petitioners of Measure 36, the gay marriage ban in OR. They are the ones responsible for the state of the law in OR currently.

don't clarify, just answer. You haven't come close so far.

 

Fair enough. You identified a specific group and that's all I ask. I just hate the generalizations about Christians, Republicans, Democrats....whoever. Those who oppose gay marriage like myself and many people I know are often cast into a net that we don't fit in and/or does not represent our thoughts/feelings on the matter.

 

When you cast your net, you should always make sure it's only reaching as far as what is factual. Beyond that, it's speculative and often prejudicial. That's what I've been trying to get MDC to understand for years with little gain.

[torridjoe 41]

I think my statement was reasonable. If you want me to explain why I think you're pathetic if you think the ruling should stand say so. It doesn't change the fact that you quoted OTHER statements that had nothing to do with that one and asked where Islam was in them, which is stupid.

 

It's a simple question, that you are refusing to answer. Why is it wrong, and why is it unconstitutional? Your statement was nothing but your usual ignorant nonsense.

[Strike 4,120]

We agree on the first part...that is the legislators.

 

But, I think you're being a bit harsh on voters. Those who truly believe in keeping a traditional marriage definition intact are very cautious at this point about giving ground on the issue. At some point, I would hope that both groups can be respected and a middle ground solution figured out....but I don't think it's necessarily lazy or irresponsible. It's the fear of giving too much ground that prompts the voting...something I can understand, even if it's not a good long-term stance.

 

Just my take on the matter. I can see your points, too.

 

There's no way we can assume that if we reject a proposal that the legislators will then come back and offer us one with the appropriate adjustments. And I don't think Torridjoe thinks so either. He defends our political system constantly, yet it's a joke. If he truly believes that he'd be sickened by our federal gov't, where every bill has a bunch of pet projects tacked on and legislators vote for them for similar reasons to the one you outlined above, because they want to get the bill passed and they'll give a little to get what they want.

[torridjoe 41]

Fair enough. You identified a specific group and that's all I ask. I just hate the generalizations about Christians, Republicans, Democrats....whoever. Those who oppose gay marriage like myself and many people I know are often cast into a net that we don't fit in and/or does not represent our thoughts/feelings on the matter.

 

Right--I gave an example in OR, and then you asked what it had to do with your post, and I meant to reply that IMO OR is an example of that kind of thinking.

 

I'm not tarring the voters in this case; I'm referring to the people putting the measures onto the ballot. Perhaps we're unique in that in other states they didn't have to reassure people they weren't going after civil unions, because they'd probably pass here fairly easily.

[Strike 4,120]

It's a simple question, that you are refusing to answer. Why is it wrong, and why is it unconstitutional? Your statement was nothing but your usual ignorant nonsense.

 

LOL. This whole tangent has been about the fact that you quoted OTHER posts of mine and asked how they were relevant to the Islam argument. You keep avoiding that FACT. Pathetic.

[Fumbleweed 457]

Right--I gave an example in OR, and then you asked what it had to do with your post, and I meant to reply that IMO OR is an example of that kind of thinking.

 

I'm not tarring the voters in this case; I'm referring to the people putting the measures onto the ballot. Perhaps we're unique in that in other states they didn't have to reassure people they weren't going after civil unions, because they'd probably pass here fairly easily.

 

So, we went in a circle. Sorry....I appreciate you explaining it to me. If I had understood what you were saying in the first place, I could have saved you from having to explain it in more detail. Again, my bad.

[torridjoe 41]

LOL. This whole tangent has been about the fact that you quoted OTHER posts of mine and asked how they were relevant to the Islam argument. You keep avoiding that FACT. Pathetic.

 

you keep avoiding an answer to the question. I think it's because you don't have one.

 

So, we went in a circle. Sorry....I appreciate you explaining it to me. If I had understood what you were saying in the first place, I could have saved you from having to explain it in more detail. Again, my bad.

 

not at all, my friend.

 

Sometimes I think torrid is just being argumentative, but if he really feels like there is nothing wrong with curriculum requiring students to participate in religious acts, such as prayer and customs, then he is starting to scare me.

 

I don't think it's right for any student to be forced to participate in religious dogma as part of their education. Teaching what the tenets of a religion are is one thing but I am sure that if it was a class holding mass and requiring the children to eat a cracker and then say the Lord's prayer, it would be different.

 

That's what this is--teaching the tenets of religion. The federal government has no role in determining the methods of curcciculum.

 

And no, it would NOT be different. That's rather the point. A historical treatment of Christian rites is A-OK.

[Strike 4,120]

you keep avoiding an answer to the question. I think it's because you don't have one.

 

No I don't. I keep responding to your post where you quoted every post BUT the one you wanted a response to, and asked where Islam was in those posts. LOL. But nevermind. We'd never agree on why it's ok to force students to practice the Muslim religion while forbidding that they even voluntarily practice Christianity in the classroom. Because I'm an American and you're a traitor.

[Ravens 03 0]

This shiat disgusts me.