About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

ehh...well...if you say so. I completely agree. As I said...

quote:

---

It is about "equality of opportunity" or better yet the equal right to take advantage (or not) of the opportunities presented.

---

Where did you get this? I never gave any such indications. Me thinks you are looking for a fight where none exists.

Hahaha, it was a figure of speech. Last time I checked, you shouldn't nitpick the hell out of an idiom. Just take it for what it's worth. Wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the various people who have expressed their dislike for marriage and made it clear that they didn't care if the government continues to recognize marriage or not. For example, hootmon has said many times in the last 6 months that he'd been through several marriages and divorces and didn't much care whether the institution existed at all. RAZD is another person that have said something similar several times before.Again, god bless them if they don't care about the government regulated institution of marriage. All I'm requesting is they don't require that their OPINION be made into law. Just don't participate in the institution if they don't care for marriage.

So then Atheists can't marry either?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Check with your local Unitarian-Universalist church.

I was being facetious in response to what thought was a ridiculous statement.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

What does it matter what you personally support? There is no "give" in this matter, it is not something that can be given and/or taken away, it is a human right. Unless you feel gays are not human...? Nothing is wrong with you having an opinion. The question is though, do you feel that your personal opinion should affect someone elses love life? I mean, we are still talking about human beings living normally within our society, right? Why should the opinion of one person affect the life of another person? It's just an opinion, right? Why do you feel the need to approve or not approve...?Wouldn't not giving a shit either way be the best position to take since you are not gay nor are seeking to marry a gay person...?I mean really, why do you even care...? Why would you care who gets married...?How does it affect you...? I think what it honestly comes down to is why do heterosexuals care if gay people want to get married? What personal issues do heterosexuals have that is causing them to care about what homosexuals are doing? How 'bout if straight people just stay out of gay peoples business?If no one gave a shit there would be no issue. But, the question is, why do people care...? And why is anyone listening to these people...? Why are human rights issues being voted on...?This is what I don't understand about your entire arguement. Why on Earth would you care what gay people are doing...?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

That's OK. Nobody ever expects the UUs!However, your point would still stand in that couples seeking marriage would be at the whim and mercy of the local churches. For example, while on internal exile (ie, on active duty in North Dakota) we rented a house in a town of 888 people. The agent managing the house told us that the town had two churches, so we had our choice of either Lutheran or Lutheran. His own wife, a Catholic, had to go the next town 13 miles away. I just checked and found a UU church 40 miles away in Grand Forks.Point is that being one of the very few different ones in an isolated community leaves one thinking that they are alone and without any support. Dan Barker of the Foundation for Freedom From Religion was raised a fundamentalist and was a fundamentalist minister until he started reading and thinking and started deconverting shortly thereafter. That was in Southern California and he still felt alone and isolated, because he knew practically nobody outside the fundamentalist community which put him through hell. He had to move more than 2000 miles across the country to find others of like mind. I heard a recording of a speech he gave at Atheists United in Los Angeles. As I recall from 20 years ago, his opening line was: "Where were you guys when I needed you?"Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

I must admit my ignorance to the UUs. In fact, before you mentioned it I didn't even know they existed. That said, it's still a religion and I do get nervous about a dogmatic approach to life, no matter how tolerant the dogma could seem. Just how many churches in the past supported the civil rights movement in the past only to have turned around recently and condemn homosexuality?My question to you is in your opinion do you see the UUs as having a potential to become just another intolerant religious sect about something/anything in the future? Yes, I know that they support gay rights right now. How do I know that they won't turn around and backstab some other minority group like the baptists did with the gays?

The UU's don't have a dogma. They are comprised of people of every background. Religious, Atheists, Wicca, Christian...all can belong to UU.Just about their only creed is tolerance of everyone's path.

And yet, I remember one sermon in which the congregration's president raised the question of how far our tolerance can be allowed to go. Could we tolerate some other denomination's intolerance?But, yes, there is no dogma. I mean, if you don't have to stop and think about it at any time, then what good is it?I think this comes meanly out of the anti-establishmentarialism 60's subculture days, but the phrase strongly associated with UUs is "To Question is the Answer". And yet that is a very powerful statement about theology, isn't it? If you only accept a dogma without questioning it, without thinking about it, then you really haven't accepted it, since you haven't even thought about it. You have to have thought about your theology, your dogma, in order to really belive it, right?At the same time, there's an adult RE program that I encountered: "Building Your Own Theology". When I discussed this with a fundamentalist co-worker (who's admittedly a bit more free-thinking than most would dare to be_, he did admit that we do indeed create our own theologies. Let's face it: a fundie will hear his denomination's theology presented to him, but is it really that theology that he adopts? No, it's his own particular misunderstanding of that theology, just as it was his teacher's own personal misunderstanding that formed the basis of that misunderstanding, and so on for countless generations.

I guess only time will tell.

Because I have a contrary opinion? Are you saying the First Amendment should suspended in my case? If homosexuals don't want to be like heterosexuals, which seems obvious enough to me, then why do they want to do a heterosexual thing like get married? If they were truly committed to their caused they'd adopt a different term, like "homounionization" or "homobonding."If gays don't want to marry a member of the opposite sex that's all right with me. And if they want to get civilly united with a same-sex partner that's all right with me, too. Since they insist on being different from heterosexuals, I want to treat them as such. What's wrong that? I'm just giving them what they want.Please tell me, onfire, that homos don't want to be like heteros, because I'm getting crossed signals from them. Why couldn't they just say: "Gee, I really love you. Let's go down to the chapel and get homounionized"?”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

You mean it's ridiculous to suggest that a majority should rule in a democracy? What would you prefer instead?”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

So what actual harm is caused by allowing people of a different sexual orientation to be married? If slavery was finally abolished, woman's and black's right to vote was finally recognized, that shows a clear precedent of moving forward where issues of civil liberties are concerned. Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the majority to insure freedom for all citizens?

Statements like this is why people keep labeling you a bigot. It's natural to want to couple with someone who you are sexually attracted to. Homosexuals, since by definition are attracted to someone of the same sex, will then want to naturally couple with someone of the same sex. It's not that they don't want to be like heterosexuals, it's that they want the right to marry the person they are coupling with, just like heterosexuals. If you honestly can't understand this then you have no compassion for you fellow human.