Forwards and backwards, at the same time.

The USA continues to puzzle the world...

On the one hand, they've made a positive, progressive step forwards, with the election of Barack Obama.

And on the other hand, the passing of Florida Amendment 2, Arizona Proposition 102 and, most importantly, the as yet unconfirmed, but apparent passing of California Proposition 8, they've taken that step right back again.

WTF is going on?

 

if I know what you were talking about then maybe I'd comment...

 

:lol: Likewise...I suspect Google and lots of reading may be required!

Where have you heard about such specific propositions Issac?

 

The Independant and the Torygraph have picked the story up, not seen the BBC notice yet. Once the whole obama won thing dies down a little then it will become more significant news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Proposition_102_(2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Amendment_2_(2008)

 

It's now clear that proposition 8 has passed. What an utter travesty of law.

 

They're a strange bunch over there in the good ol' US, that's for sure, progressive they ain't when it comes to anything connected to religion, and I would think that it's the God squad that pushed that one through. Such bloody hypocrites.

Good to see Obama in though, great to see all those smiling excited faces on the news, hope he makes a good job of it all.

 

I agree it is great that a man of colour is to be President but how he got there and the money and favours he must owe worry me. I know that he raised a lot of cash on line but not all of it.
What kind of President we shall see. Hopefully he will be better than Mr Bush. I just hope that truth and honesty will be his watch word. Some how I think this will be forgotten.

D Louth

 

God fearing folk

Despite the American proclivity for all things brash, the right to bear arms and the immovable belief that they are always right, they are nevertheless a God fearing nation; both black and white.

It should come as no surprise that this marriage bill has been ratified. Of course the church has had a big input but so too have the God fearing American public. If that is indeed what they are then the good book tells them it is an abomination, which of course it is. Hopefully other states will follow the lead and it will be the same throughout the nation.

Doubtless one of the 52 states will abstain and it will of course be brash Nevada which will be beseiged by gun totting faggots demanding the right to be right in still getting "married", in church of course, because after all they are God fearing believers.

 

I suspect I may be on a limb if the press coverage is anything to go by, but I just don't get what's remarkable about that. Bush was the first president ever to have been born in Connecticut; is that a big deal - no, because there is nothing inherent about being born in Connecticut that would make him unlikely or unsuitable to become president. If this were 1890, I could understand the furore but in this age it seems to me that Barack's skin color [sic] is about as relevant to his current position as his eye color.

O...... K......

 

O.....k.....

Would you care to elaborate or at least fill in the blanks?

 

no

 

Don't be coy, say what you mean and mean what you say!:

 

You're not about to start quoting leviticus are you?

In what way is it an abomination. Use fact to support your answer, and as I'm an atheist the bible does not count as fact.

 

In which case I'm a little hamstrung. Don't quote Leviticus is like saying, I don't believe so that doesn't count. It is, however, a fact that the laws handed down to the Jews as Leviticus, did state that the act between two people of the same sex was an abomination. There are many who believe it still to be such.

You ask in what way is it an abomination. The word refers to the disgust that was held for these acts. In many quarters it is still described as disgusting behaviour.

The fact that many have become blase or more tolerant to this type of liason may disgust those of us who believe that the state of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. To liberally accept the watering down of these values to afford a sense of normality or conformity for those who are anything but normal or conforming is offensive to many.

Why in the first place do they need to shout it from the rooftops that they are gay and getting married. Can they not just live quietly and anonymously and not "MARRIED".

However, it is academic as they ain't doin' it in those three states anymore. More will follow as people realise it's ok to say "I disagree, it's not acceptable".

Is it just coincidence that San Francisco in California; one of the three; has one of the largest gay communities in the United States. It would seem that the good people of that state have had enough of their noses being rubbed in it, they were disgusted and felt abomination for the whole idea. They'll still know they're there but will have the satisfaction of knowing that a gay wedding isn't going to follow or precede theirs and they won't be able to call themselves married. That sir, in California, Florida and Arizona is reserved for heterosexuals only.

 

To each their own. It doesn't interfere with my life. I'm a great believer in karma, if its between two people in a minority, consensual and doesn't hurt anyone you, as an outsider shouldn't be able to use the bible like a "manifesto of fact" for the human race on which to nail your prejudices and garner support. That sort of attitude with other religions has got this world in the hot water its in now. Thats like saying God wrote it verbatim. Why be "God Fearing" anyway?, do you think your creator wants you to lead your life in fear, I doubt it. Most devout people I know seem to let the beauty and fun in life pass them by.

 

I'm alright Jack, pull the ladder up, it hasn't interfered with my life. It obviously interfered sufficiently with the lives of Californians who presumably lobbied for the change.

How would you feel taking your child, for instance, to a beach where this type of activity is rife. Having to answer the question that inevitably comes from the lips of innocents, " why has that man got his hands in that other mans pants" or " why is that man kissing that other man".

Or do you suggest we just laugh it off and tell them it's normal on this beach. Have you never heard of learned behaviour.

For your information, God fearing, I feel, you have out of context. We are not to fear God but to love him and obey him.

I am not using the bible as a manifesto of fact but simply stated that the bible tells us it is an abomination, that is a fact, like it or not. Similarly it was not suggested by me that God wrote it down verbatim, he simply passed the message on to his people, by what means I'm afraid I don't know. It is clear however, that his people took his words to heart because they went to the trouble of writing it down for generations to follow.

If you want to be a bleeding heart christian, go ahead, live your life of karma and accept whatever forms of abnormality that fit in with your lifestyle, that is your choice. Just stop procrastinating when all or some around you choose not to chose the same stance. The citizens whom it concern have decided and they don't want it. Surely, that is there choice.

 

And why is this *any* different from having to explain to a child what a male and female are up to on the beach if they are 'heavy petting'?

No, we adopt a balanced adult approach to the matter and explain (in terms appropriate for a child) why they are doing it and if they are a little too "involved", why it's inappropriate behaviour.

Yes, but just because as a child you see it, you have to do it - that only happens if you don't intervene. As a child I was exposed to every adult I knew smoking - I don't smoke, never had. I also watched a lot of war films and James Bond films - last time I checked, I wasn't in uniform nor do I work for MI6.

The great thing about people who use the bible as a codex of all that is moral then seem to pick and choose what is right and what isn't. You say that the bible isn't "a manifesto of fact" (and I agree with you there) but is the word of God. Well sorry, it isn't the word of God - even if it were handed down from on high, the version most Americans thump will be someone's interpretation / translation of stories told by 'his people' and subject to manipulation by some of 'his people' to pass on the message they want you to hear. Don't believe me? Well who chose to ignore all the words which make up the "New Testament apocrypha"?

So at some point some of 'his people' decided Homosexuality is a bad thing (an abomination), it was OK to kill your firstborn, Pi=3 and anal sex is OK.

"Choice" something you now don't have if you're gay and want your partnership recognised in the eyes of the law.......

 

If a man and a woman were doing this in public it would not be acceptable either.

The simple answer would be "because they love each other".

Correct. The law is separated from religion and freedom of religion (and freedom FROM religion) is enshrined in the constitution. Thus you may not use the bible, the koran, the torah, the bhagavad gita or any other religious text as a basis for law.

If that hamstrings you then that proves that this is enforced religion, and persecution of the minority (the very thing that the pilgrims fled).

Homosexuality is not learned behaviour. Bigotry is.

 

The basis of most modern law is a loose reconstruction of the biblical rules that were set down to be used thousands of years ago.

Are we going to ignore the wishes of the majority to pacify the minority. Democratic, that ain't.

Must be a lot of bigots in California, Arizona and Florida then. But then, their opinion doesn't count because of freedoms perceived by the minority as their God given right.

If it's ok to be a homosexual in public, why can't one be a bigot? Faggot,bigot,faggot,bigot, not that much difference. It just goes against current public taste.

I agree entirely with your statement re: heterosexual sex in public places. Not acceptable, but somewhat easier to explain, they already have the "mummy daddy" example. It is that it is so much more prevalent amongst gays. For Christs sake, using a public toilet shouldn't be a place where you are propositioned, that does affect me if it happens and likewise I don't want to be in any public place where I have to observe similar behaviour.

 

On that basis, blacks and women could have continued being denied their rights too.

It is merely a matter of time. Proposition 22 in 2000 passed with 63% of the vote. Proposition 8 passed with 52%. In only 8 years there was an 11% shift - a clear trend. Given the age demographic of the way voters went (older voters were yes on 8, younger voters no on 8 was the overall trend), those who are against it will die.

So you will have no argument once the above trend comes to its logical conclusion, and the majority votes for it?

Yup.

The california and US constitutions are quite clear that those freedoms extend to all. I think the point is that this isn't being looked for as a god-given right, but rather a legal right. As before, god doesn't come into that.

So you're saying they should never leave the house?

You can. It's called the first amendment. That has legal protection.

Where does "being easy to explain" come into things? The second amendment isn't easy to explain to a kid - "Remember to respect people in authority and do what policemen tell you. But you can carry a gun so you can not do what they tell you." However, it's still there...

I agree. And there are laws against that. As there should be. That has no relevance whatsoever to the subject at hand - ie marriage rights. Rather it is just a part of your overall condemnation of homosexuality.

How do you think a gay man would feel if propositioned by a woman? How do you think a woman feels when having filth called out to her by a bunch of builders when she's walking down the street? Or having straight men all stare at her chest rather than listen to what she says? Lewd behaviour has no place in public on any side of this, but where's the harm in two men holding hands when walking down the street?