EXACTLY

[velessa]

Borrowed from ajslj:

In 1787, the majority of people in this country thought African Americans were worth only three fifths of a human being. In 1887, the majority of people in this country thought Interracial Marriage was an abomination. In 2008, the majority of Californians thought marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Just because the majority of people in this country agree with you doesn't mean that you are right, it just means that a lot of people are wrong.

Comments

[velessa.livejournal.com]

Um, if you're saying the fight for racial equality has been won I'd love to move to the dream world you're living in.

Besides, you're comparing apples to oranges; gays are facing a completley different kind of fight. The people who seek to oppress equal rights for gays have their reasons based in religion, which is supposed to be unequivocally kept out of our government. I don't know of the bible/their churches saying anything about hating people of different colors, but they're openly taught to hate homosexuals which then affects how they vote. It's a shame this country has such puritanical origins still affecting us today.

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

Erm, you were the one who started up the comparison between blacks and gays. In the original post.

Not everyone bases their objection on religion either. I know plenty of non-religious people who want for the word marriage to only mean between a man and a woman. That's not to say there aren't a lot in the religious opposition to it. But the brush you are using is entirely too broad.

I'll also make the original point that I made a day or 2 ago that government should not even be involved in anyone's marriage. Nor should they be involved in anyone's religion. I think it's entirely ridiculous that our government has run amok the way it has the past 20 years. It needs to stop, and sooner rather than later, otherwise we're going to have another war of secession on our hands.

Then again it is our puritanical beginnings that make this country the great one that it is. The further we drift from it, the worse off we end up. In fact it is the puritanical beginnings that allow you and I to have this reasoned discourse online without fear of stormtroopers barging down our doors.

[velessa.livejournal.com]

The fact that both groups have had to fight to be counted equally in society is valid; the reasons WHY they have to fight in the first place and how they go about it are what's different.

I think this is still mainly a problem of terminology, people confusing marriage as being both a legal and religious occurrence instead of having two different terms to distinguish between the two. Yeah, I can see religions saying marriage is a man and a woman, or a man and three women, or a man and a man, or whatever the hell they want it to be. I don't care what religions do (as long as they're not actively doing harm), but I do care when people try to force their religions into government and define what the government can do based on their personal religious beliefs. Legal marriage can be defined entirely differently from religious marriage, and both be completely valid. But legal marriage can't be for some and not others, it has to apply to all citizens; religious marriage is free to pick and choose who they allow to marry.

I don't know if government should be involved in marriage at all, but since it is, there needs to be a uniform contract of what it is and what it provides across the books for all of its citizens. I'll refer to mutive's arguments on government and marriage.

I'll have to disagree with you there, I think a lot of the Christian religions took/take hate and fearmongering way too far. Would we have had the Salem Witch Trials and thousands of other persecutions and deaths in the name of religion over the ages if the country was founded by say, Buddhists or something?

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

How can you have a government by and for the people without taking their religious beliefs into account? I mean there are some people who base their entire identity on their religions. Are all these people bad people for following what their leaders (who they believe are inspired by God) tell them to?

Christianity has made some mistakes in the past. So have the Muslims, and I'm sure the Jews. In fact I bet you can find some Buddhists somewhere that did something wrong. Does that mean that all of those people should be condemned? Should they have their right to vote taken away based on the mistakes of the past?

These aren't just rhetorical questions either. I'd like to know your answers to them. Though to be honest, I don't know if I even have a good answer for one or 2 of them myself...

[velessa.livejournal.com]

I don't think religion has any place in society. You don't need some god or preacher to determine right from wrong for you; unless you're psychotic, that knowledge is innate. Religion may not necessarily be a bad thing (there are usually some good points like teaching people they should be love and help each other), but I certainly think a lot of them have done a hell of a lot more harm than good over the centuries (crusades, inquisition, suicide bombers, etc.).

Anyway, I take issue with people who don't or won't think for themselves and just swallow whatever they're told without question. Hence you have some people hating others just because they aren't like them and they were told to. Maybe they're not inherently bad, but the brainwashing they've suffered causes them to do bad things (hate/hurt/kill people who aren't like them). So yeah, in that sense they're "bad" for doing bad things that their leaders tell them to. The bad people are those leaders doing the brainwashing; I guess they gain more money and power the more people they convert or something. I sure as hell don't think those people should be in charge of the government, like when the Catholic church basically ran all of Europe.

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

Gotcha. I'm ok with the notion of the separation between church and state, however in this country, you won't ever be able to separate a lot of the voters from their church.

[greenanimal.livejournal.com]

We're not intending to take any individuals right to vote. However, the millions of tax free dollars collected in the name of that god, and only what that god wants, should not be used for political purposes. THAT is not separation of church and state. If that money was not tax sheltered, then who gives a crap.

[randyandrews.livejournal.com]

Heh, yea, that's another issue that is a hot button issue for me. Taxes. It's ludicrous how much the government takes away from everyone in taxes each year, and yet we still manage to run into the red every year.

[glitterberrys.livejournal.com]

Buddhists, maybe not, but Christianity isn't the only religion that opposes homosexuality - or, at least, isn't the only religion used as a shield for people to hide behind so they don't have to admit that they think gay sex is icky. Last time I read the Bible, Jesus didn't say "no buttfucking," but hey, it was quite some time ago; maybe I missed that bit.

[velessa.livejournal.com]

Oh sure, but that whole Christian, Muslim, etc. group seems to be particularly vocal about it. I don't like ANY organized religion, actually, I'd rather people think for themselves than be told what to believe.

[glitterberrys.livejournal.com]

My MO has always been to figure out what I believe and then see if there's a belief system that fits it. I never understood people deciding that since they believe in XYZ from the Bible, they're required to believe everything in it - and instead of questioning it, they decide well, that's it then.