Saying that they didn't have the right to vote until 50 years ago and saying there were stringent policies that prevented them from voting until 1964 in 10 of the 50 states is quite another. In the early days of the colonies you had to be a land owner or be part of a church to vote so does that mean all the poor white folks didn't get to vote until 150 years ago?
Apparently you aren't familiar with the context in which this point was raised. The only reason this issue came up was to be used as a demonstration of something that was once deemed acceptable and how obviously despicable it is in hindsight. The fact that a good portion of the United States felt that denying people of color the ability to vote was okay only 50 years goes to show how much things have changed (although there are still a sad minority who support this view).
As to the second part of your statement, yes that does mean that all poor white folks didn't get to vote until 150 years ago, at least in the colonies. I don't see what's hard to grasp here.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjinaz
I am saying both sides would be recognized equally just one is called marriage and is done by a church and the other is called <insert your chosen name here> and is done by non religious authority. Even heteros that aren't religious would not be "married".
I know what you are saying. There is no problem with comprehension here. The answer is no - unless, of course, you're willing to give up the term "marriage", as there is no reason why the rest of society should to please you.
Further, you misunderstand your own side if you think that religously married homosexuals could claim the "marriage" term and it would be acceptable to the anti gay marriage crowd. It's not ABOUT the word, it's about denying the equivalence of gay relationships to heterosexual ones. Which is, in the end, why it's nothing more than bigotry dressed up as tradition.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Really? wow. I bet you vomit into your throat everytime you sing "God keep our land glorious and free!"
The country was founded on religion and it is not easily separated. And actually it is keeping a tradition founded in antiquity. It is not just the Judeo Christian religions we are talking about here. It is as far as I know well maybe ALL of them. Most of them are much less forgiving of homosexuality than christians. I am saying both sides would be recognized equally just one is called marriage and is done by a church and the other is called <insert your chosen name here> and is done by non religious authority. Even heteros that aren't religious would not be "married". It is not about same sex marriage, it is about separating those who want a religious union and those that do not.
How do you mean specifically 'founded on religion' because its said an awful lot and has rarely been explained to me, especially when in the US for example the founding fathers were weary and distrusting even of organized religion.
Non religious people get married all the time, my sister married with a justice of the peace and not in a church. Should she consider herself not married since no religious ceremony or approval was given?
No religion has a copyright on the word marriage, whats behind these anti gay marriage laws is simple fear, ignorance and intolerance of gay people.
But some religions are fine with same sex marriage so you can't label religion, it just comes down to a particular sect that says hey we have no issues with homosexuals they are people too and they can be 'married' (*cough* this may be only a disguise to differentiate and get higher turnouts aka marketing ploy). On the science end, I'm sure no one wants to label homosexuals as a defect, mutation, reject, but perhaps 'special' so in a sense some of them probably sugar coat some of their theories. Welcome to the world of you can't piss anyone off and everyone has to play nice and why can't I have my mini wheats with or without frosting it's my choice blah blah.
I've always believed that the United States was founded on principles like "freedom" and "equality". Am I wrong?
Take it from me -- when same-sex marriage is legal in your country, you won't notice the difference. It's been legal here in Canada going on three years now and nothing has changed except a few more people are now married.
Although, if you can tell me how some people having a piece of paper in their closet that says "Married" on it negatively effects me, I might change my tune.
I've always believed that the United States was founded on principles like "freedom" and "equality". Am I wrong?
No it wasn't, step back the last 100 years of history and you'll find no country was ever founded on freedom and equality. Hell even 30 years ago you said the lords prayer in school, the new politicallly correct world is not really that old at all.
No it wasn't, step back the last 100 years of history and you'll find no country was ever founded on freedom and equality. Hell even 30 years ago you said the lords prayer in school, the new politicallly correct world is not really that old at all.
Well it may have been lip service, but the United states was founded on principles of freedom and equality, at least for those people that were deemed deserving of it at the time.
While it's true that the lords prayer has been recited in US schools in the not too distant past, notions of freedom of, and more importantly freedom from, religion have been present since the adoption of the first amendment in 1789.
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Re-occurring issues like homosexuality, birth defects, etc.. These are just part of the equation as our genes are imperfect and the copying process is flawed, so you expect what we see in humans, regards to homosexuality.
The science of how genetics influences human behaviour has barely been studied. It is not possible for someone to make a statement like the one above with any confidence at this point. To state it in a factual way, like you did, is just dumb.
And the "study" you quote in your subsequent post is written by Warren Throckmorton, who is an editor of "Christian Post International". Not exactly a reliable source.
No it wasn't, step back the last 100 years of history and you'll find no country was ever founded on freedom and equality. Hell even 30 years ago you said the lords prayer in school, the new politicallly correct world is not really that old at all.
That doesn't make much sense.
The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 and the Constitution was adopted 11 years later. That's more than a hundred years ago. I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but I'm positive that freedom and equality are in there somewhere.
What do the Lord's Prayer and political correctness have to do with it?
No it wasn't, step back the last 100 years of history and you'll find no country was ever founded on freedom and equality. Hell even 30 years ago you said the lords prayer in school, the new politicallly correct world is not really that old at all.
Actually it's the constitution that says no prayer in school. The reason why it is only recently that prayer has been disallowed in public schools is that only recently did the first amendment apply to the States (as in individual states).
The Bill of Rights was never originally meant to apply to the States, it was only supposed to apply to the federal government. However, after the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment was passed that slowly changed. The Due Process clause states something like "States cannot take away rights that are essential to liberty without the due process of law." Which means rights contained in the bill of rights deemed "essential" would apply to the States. Over the next 100 years or so the Supreme Court decided which rights were essential to liberty through various cases. This is called incorporation of the bill of rights. Most amendments have been incorporated, including the first, fourth, fifth. The most notable exception is the second amendment.
So, as the establishment clause was incorporated sometime in the early 20th century, States can no longer allow prayer in public schools.
(I assume you are talking about the United States in your post as that's what the threads about)
I guess it comes down to this for me, although I was hesitant to get into this discussion:
If marriage is a religious thing, then fine. Government shouldn't have anything to do with it, including recognizing marriages of any sort, or giving tax benefits to married couples. People can call themselves whatever they want. Equality ensues.
If marriage is a government thing, then religion shouldn't have anything to do with it. If you take religion out of the picture, then 2 people who want to be married in the eyes of the government can do it, regardless of whether they are male or female or whatever. Equality ensues. That's basically the argument the Iowa Supreme Court made.
The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 and the Constitution was adopted 11 years later. That's more than a hundred years ago. I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but I'm positive that freedom and equality are in there somewhere.
What do the Lord's Prayer and political correctness have to do with it?
So you think that suppression of colored people, womens rights, slavery etc are 'freedom' and 'equality'? The last 100 years has been full of the above, only recently meaning in the last 30-40 years has society moved into a politically correct world. The Declaration of Independence was for the freedom of the american colonies was it not? The freedom of a nation.. but not saying how they are to act.
The science of how genetics influences human behaviour has barely been studied. It is not possible for someone to make a statement like the one above with any confidence at this point. To state it in a factual way, like you did, is just dumb.
And the "study" you quote in your subsequent post is written by Warren Throckmorton, who is an editor of "Christian Post International". Not exactly a reliable source.
This is true, and it wasn't my intent to suggest I was an expert. I had stated throughout my posts very little was really known and that geneticists really don't know for sure, even though people like Francis Collins had said hereditary was likely to account for a small amount, say 30%; Collins is also a Christian, I know that its ironic but believe me if there is one segment more keen on finding a 'cure' (as sad as that is to say) its definitely the religious right in America.
However we keep finding more clues: US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics
Quote:
US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.
Such findings - including a highly anticipated study this winter - would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of California's recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that "schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys", suggesting homosexuality would then spread.
I think that most scientists that work in research on this or psychologists would claim that they believe homosexuality is mostly about being born that way and not something you decide on as choice.
However again theres a complexity to all this, there are bisexuals, transgendered, theres people who seem to have made a choice to be with same sex while others it seems clear they were born this way.
So what does Genetics and Hereditary factors play a role in this, we don't know yet and yes anyone claiming to know anything for sure is not being honest.
However that research being done is leading towards an answer many expect, now we just have to see what happens in the next 5-20yrs and then we can deal with any ethical questions once we can truly understand what is involved in this complex and emotional issue.
Now Funny or Die is getting in on the fun with a star-studded version that boasts Alicia Silverstone, Lance Bass, George Takei, and Sarah Chalke. The ad offers an answer to the gay marriage issue: a giant gay-repellent umbrella that will shield god-fearing Americans from the storm
Colbert was better, though Takei was great.
Last edited by troutman; 04-23-2009 at 03:33 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Now Funny or Die is getting in on the fun with a star-studded version that boasts Alicia Silverstone, Lance Bass, George Takei, and Sarah Chalke. The ad offers an answer to the gay marriage issue: a giant gay-repellent umbrella that will shield god-fearing Americans from the storm
Colbert was better, though Takei was great.
Sarah Chalke can stand under my umbrella, ella, ella eh.
