Iceland passes gay marriage law in unanimous vote

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Sounds like you're a bigot too since you are bigoted against people who do not support gay marriage.

Dude, that's ######ed.

Okay everyone let's apply GreenTeaFrapp's logic to some other people.

Martin Luther King Jr.: He was against anyone who opposed integration and equal rights for blacks. Verdict: BIGOT!

Abraham Lincoln: He was opposed to anyone who was pro-slavery
Verdict: BIGOT!

Hypothetical Guy: He "has nothing against black people" but just doesn't think they should be allowed to vote, cause that's the way it was in the constitution way back when. Also opposes gay marriage because his particular religious sect thinks it's a sin. And has does not condemn the actions of the KKK because being against people who are for something that is stupid would make him a bigot.
Verdict: NOT a bigot.

Yup, that's some rock solid logic.
I guess all us anti-anti-gay marriage folks are just a bunch of backwards bigots.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But to get those rights under Canadian law you have to be legally married, which goes right back into the whole debate about whether government should be involved in marriage. To make it equal, the government would have to give civil unions to both straight and gay couples, and then let the churches sort out whether they want to perform ceremonies. In other words, it's exactly the same.

...

+1

The bottomline fix for all this is to please no one and to have everyone get civil union licenses given by the government.

Governments shouldnt be in the bedrooms, churches or parades.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

+1

The bottomline fix for all this is to please no one and to have everyone get civil union licenses given by the government.

Governments shouldnt be in the bedrooms, churches or parades.

Which the likelihood of happening is zero, ok .01%.

[puckluck]

Is there a way to make a poll on who is for or against gay marriage? There are probably some people who are for or against it but don't want to be ridiculed in this thread.

It would be interesting to look at the numbers.

[ma-skis.com]

seems that it's just a word everyone is arguing about, not that big a deal. If the government is willing to recognize something that is happening already, why is it a big deal?

Two people commited to living together... who cares what they call it. Why is the label so important?

The government recognizing this has nothing to do with the religious conotations that other people associate with the word. They use the same word to represent different things. Odds are they still won't get married in a number of churches.

The government is just saying, "oh, this is happening, let's cut some tape"

[Locke]

To inject some humour:

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Abraham Lincoln: He was opposed to anyone who was pro-slavery
Verdict: BIGOT!

Well, not exactly.

Lincoln's friends and family owned slaves. While the civil war was going on.

He wasn't a bigot, but he was a hypocrite who used the idea of 'slavery' to abolish state rights and give the central government more power.

Carry on now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

+1

The bottomline fix for all this is to please no one and to have everyone get civil union licenses given by the government.

Governments shouldnt be in the bedrooms, churches or parades.

Pretty much what I want.

If a 'couple' wants to get married, they just need to get a civil union license from the government for legality and tax purposes.

Everything else can be looked at by the church, or it can be ignored depending on what the couple wants.

When people ask why can't gay marriage be legal, I turn around and ask why is the government involved in the whole process outside of legality and tax purposes.

Fix the latter, and you fix the former.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, not exactly.

Lincoln's friends and family owned slaves. While the civil war was going on.

He wasn't a bigot, but he was a hypocrite who used the idea of 'slavery' to abolish state rights and give the central government more power.

Carry on now.

A commonly repeated story, but nevertheless a myth--and, I might add, a favourite myth of southern states-rights apologists who like to paint Lincoln as the bad guy in the "War of Northern Aggression."

Lincoln actually entered politics for the first time in response to the Kansas-Nebraska act, because he was outraged that it represented a covert expansion of slavery into the new territories. He had been a lawyer for a long time, and a lifelong Whig, but it was slavery that turned him into a politician, and for that matter a Republican.

By his "family and friends" I suppose you must mean childhood friends and extended family. He was, of course, born in Kentucky, which was a slave state--but made his career in Illinois, which was not. His father and immediate family had moved to Illinois in 1830; Lincoln's formative years took place among people who did not own slaves, and it's quite clear that the abolition of slavery was a central mission of his, whatever else he may have said about the preservation of the union at all costs.

In fact, what's notable about Abraham Lincoln was that he stood with a wing of the Republican party whose unwillingness to compromise on slavery-related issues was more or less responsible for the secession of the south, and his passion for the union was responsible for the continuation of the war.

One apocryphal story is that when Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe in the first years of the war, he commented that "this is the little woman who started this big war." Clearly, the war was about many things, but at its core it was--as Lincoln clearly understood--about slavery.

[Azure]

Not to derail the thread. Actually who cares, its run its course.

Lincoln, oddly enough, apparently shared some of these views. In his 1860 inaugural address, he said: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Two years later, President Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)." And in 1858 Lincoln had written: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3487

As confusing as that may seem considering his stance on slavery down the road, and his actions that basically set all slaves free, I do believe that slavery was the 'political' issue behind the civil war. It was the issue that could unite the North against the South, and years later it keeps giving the blame to the South because they owned slaves.

You said it yourself, the war was about many things. Slavery was the 'good' result, although black people struggled for many, many years afterward to fit into society, but Lincoln in his 'love' for the Union, or his disbelief in slavery, or his view that secession by the South was wrong.....could have been easily considered a tyrant considering some of his actions.

Much less a hypocrite, which he is because of his reputed 'love' for a free country, a free government, and yet his actions often spoke otherwise.

When considering Lincoln, there are many statements from him that suggest that he believed what the Declaration of Independence says. But there are also quite a few policies he initiated that suggest that he was all too willing to compromise certain principles. Consider the following pro-Declaration statement from Lincoln: "The expression of that principle [political freedom], in our Declaration of Independence was most happy and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity."
Yet Lincoln has a blemished record of following the ideal of free government in his political life, as when he issued on May 18, 1864, the following order: "You will take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce ... and prohibit any further publication thereof.... You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison ... the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers."

Certainly not the 'hero' that some make him out to be. Unless of course you believe in big government. Which you obviously do and have said many times.

As for being associated with slave owning families, he married the daughter of a prominent slave owning family.

And the 'myth' revolves around Lincoln owning slaves. Which I never said he did.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Azure, it's important not to confuse "the political equality of white and black races" with abolition. Lincoln was an abolitionist--by his own, repeated admission, and from the earliest times of his career.

In all seriousness, this is not a matter that we need spend a great deal trading links on. Instead, look for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and for his "house divided" speech, which he gave when accepting the nomination for Senator for the Republican party. Lincoln did not believe in racial equality (in fact, to do so would have been to be far more radical than 90% of abolitionists) but he clearly believed a) in the abolition of slavery and b) that this issue was eventually going to cause armed conflict in the U.S.

Like I said, all you need to do is to look at what prompted him to enter politics. It was the expansion of slavery under the Kansas-Nebraska act, which was merely the most recent of a number of provocations that slaveholding states had given the free states since the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law--which you'll recall was the impetus for Thoreau's essay on "Civil Disobedience."

Lincoln was not perfect--and you're right about one thing, which is that he oversaw a massive and radical acquisition of power by the federal government, in part as a necessary effect of waging civil war with the south--but many of those powers remain in place to-day.

But it's possible to make too much of incidental connections with slaveholding families. Keep in mind that slaveholding Americans and abolitionists more or less rubbed elbows, being separated by the Ohio river in much of the northeast, and of course being separated by nothing at all in the case of Washington D.C., which was effectively located near the heart of the pro-slavery movement.

So Lincoln married the daughter of a slaveholder. So what? I married the daughter of an Anglican. Does that mean I sympathize with Anglicans?

In the end, we need only look to what Lincoln said about the issue of slavery, and more importantly what he did about it. At the end of the day, you'll find many more vocal abolitionists, but you won't find any who were as effective.

[amorak]

I am pretty sure, based on the above, that Azure definitely ownes a '69 Charger in orange with a certain flag on the roof.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by amorak

I am pretty sure, based on the above, that Azure definitely ownes a '69 Charger in orange with a certain flag on the roof.

Yes of course. I hate black people.

IFF, I don't necessarily disagree. His position on slavery, while often debated was made quite clear by his actions.

There was an article on CNN a while back showcasing the relationship he had with a black slave. It went through some history, and mentioned the quotes I'm posted above. Lincoln didn't have a lot of support from the black community because of that. In fact he had to win them over, which of course he did.

I'm just saying that he was a hypocrite because of his professed love for the 'union'....for a 'free government' 'free state'....the 'declaration of independence'....all of which he trampled upon many times throughout his Presidency. Not only in muzzling the media as the quote I posted mentioned, but in holding Confederate soldiers without trial, thousands of them, obviously the suspension of habeous corpus as well. And many others that I can't remember right now.

The only reason that I brought up the fact that he married the daughter of a prominent slave owner was because it often seemed like Lincoln really did HATE the idea of slavery, but he wasn't willing to bring it into his political career. He was an abolitionist, but it seemed like only because he saw what slavery was doing to the black race, and not because he thought all men are created equal. Again, something he apparently forgot to notice time and time again when he read what the founding fathers had written.

Was he a bad person? Most certainly not. In fact I think at the time he was about the only person that could have accomplished what he did. Ending slavery. The increased power of the central government is a much minor issue in the bigger picture. Even if those powers still exist today, and are the reason of so many issues in the US.

Slavery was a cruel, vile and inhumane practice and it needed to be ended.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Pretty much what I want.

If a 'couple' wants to get married, they just need to get a civil union license from the government for legality and tax purposes.

Everything else can be looked at by the church, or it can be ignored depending on what the couple wants.

When people ask why can't gay marriage be legal, I turn around and ask why is the government involved in the whole process outside of legality and tax purposes.

Fix the latter, and you fix the former.

But that won't happen, why do you pretend it will.

In fact in the US even recognizing CIVIL union is a major obstacle, let alone the religious pretending the word marriage is their own magical word that no one can touch.

Some states have tried to pass small things like visitation/funeral rights to partners in gay relationships, those also can't make it into law. If anyone attempts to bring in some kind of equality to the letter of the law in regards to gay's in the US its quickly and loudly fought against.

So its not just a matter of the word marriage, if only it was; but its the nonsense that a book 2000yrs ago is the perfect and final word on morals and that we can't grow up or adapt here in the modern world.

The US is so held back by these beliefs I see very little hope for it to even give into civil unions for gay's, in fact of the western world I'm betting it will be a race for last place between America and the Vatican on who gives in finally to rights for gay's. Probably in the year 2100 or so

Just look at the republican party's statement in Texas on this issue, talk about scary/sad/shocking/funny all at the same time:

We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases.

Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.”

We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits.

We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0621/tx-...rriage-felony/

The reason Azure I try to focus on an issue rather than "I don't like religion!" is when we debate these issues I HAVE to think those opposed to rights for gays give it a second thought when they see the major reason against it is simply reading a holy book, and then forcing their belief on a significant segment of society to suit their own wishes against theirs.

I'm sure you can understand that frustration I and others feel, because the debate stops immediately when someone says "well thats how I feel, its my belief so there."

So I'm left with 2 hopes, one is less religiosity in the US which is slowly happening as we've seen with Canada and most of Europe. Or that reasonable religious folks think more about this issue and abandon their stance for at least civil unions and full rights for gay couples, especially if the word marriage is not touched since its so special to them.

You just feel like they will not compromise, they can't come around to your way of thinking because its gods final word on it and it forever will be that way.

Its like arguing with a wall sometimes, at least I can/have changed my views throughout my life on all kinds of issues, I call it evolution my religious friends call me intelligently designed

[Azure]

Hey I agree.

The only reason I'm saying fix the problem of the government being involved in our personal lives is because its a bigger solution to a whole lot of other problems.

Gay marriage of course being one of them.

[photon]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Is there a way to make a poll on who is for or against gay marriage? There are probably some people who are for or against it but don't want to be ridiculed in this thread.

It would be interesting to look at the numbers.

Sure, what options should there be and how should they be worded?

[Azure]

Yes, no.....and then an option for civil unions only, or get the government out of the marriage business completely or something like that.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure, what options should there be and how should they be worded?

Maybe I can start a new thread?

Something along the lines of:

Do you believe in homosexual marriage? yes or no

And make it anonymous if you don't mind, just so some people aren't scared to vote incase they are looked at differently.

Just pretty curious to how many people approve or disapprove of gay marriage.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

IFF, I don't necessarily disagree. His position on slavery, while often debated was made quite clear by his actions.

There was an article on CNN a while back showcasing the relationship he had with a black slave. It went through some history, and mentioned the quotes I'm posted above. Lincoln didn't have a lot of support from the black community because of that. In fact he had to win them over, which of course he did.

Was it Fredrick Douglass? He was a former slave, mind you--who escaped and then went on the abolitionist speaking circuit and became a minor celebrity in the free states.

I don't think we disagree all that much in the end. What I often explained to students (when I was teaching this stuff) was that racism was a standard, accepted worldview at that time--and abolitionists were just racists who thought slavery was wrong. Many of them wanted to free the slaves and then forcibly relocate them to Africa--keep in mind, those slave families had been American for many generations!

What I was taking issue with was the idea (which I've heard espoused by some) that Lincoln didn't care about slavery itself, when clearly it was his raison d'etre as a politician. That doesn't mean he didn't harbour racist attitudes (though some of that, I feel, is typical political "ideological triangulation"--Lincoln needed to create a broad coalition of voters in order to win office, not just hardcore abolitionists such as you would have found in Massachusetts or among the Quakers in Pennsylvania.

I'd say that Lincoln's greatest strength and his greatest flaw were the same: he had a monomaniacal dedication to two ideas: the abolition of slavery and the preservation of the union. Those two ideas, unfortunately, created a contradiction that could only be resolved through a bloody and costly civil war.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, no.....and then an option for civil unions only, or get the government out of the marriage business completely or something like that.

I know the poll is already up, but I'd be curious to 2 polls, one for marriage, and one for civil unions.