They must have misunderstood you then. Tell them that they're getting the glare because they voted FOR amendment 2. A baptist living in the bible belt would have glared at them if they had voted against it.
Seems I misunderstood them (I had earplugs in doing yardwork).
They said if you lived in the bible belt or were a Southern Baptist you'd understand. I guess that's why it failed in Florida by a 2 to 1 margin.
Nice thing is, if you don't like Florida there's another 49 to choose from. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
You may as well have asked him if he hates homosexuals, cause then he'd understand too. If they can't articulate their reasoning, or won't, then they should STFU.
Personally, I think its just too much of a change for some people to handle right now. I'm ashamed to say that my home state of Wisconsin also does not allow homosexual marriage or even civil unions. We just need to keep working at it and eventually these people will come around or die off.
<!--quoteo(post=1692880:date=Nov 8 2008, 12:10 PM:name=SkulkBait)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkulkBait @ Nov 8 2008, 12:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692880"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You may as well have asked him if he hates homosexuals, cause then he'd understand too. If they can't articulate their reasoning, or won't, then they should STFU. [...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am surmising the state of Florida overwhelmingly approved this proposal because of the Baptist's influence in the deep south. They justified voting against this proposal based largely on their interpretation of the bible.
That's just an opinion though... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
If thats the case, then you cannot claim that they "embrace freedom" as you did earlier. People who embrace freedom do not seek to force their religion on others through legislation.
Depot, you need to come clean here. We're talking about the <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_(2008)" target="_blank">Florida Marriage Amendment, also known as Proposition 2 and The Marriage Protection Amendment,</a> which the people of Florida voted <b>for,</b> not against. They didn't reject it, they approved it. They voted FOR the proposal. If you know something we don't, tell us. You seem to be having a laugh here, and I don't see what's funny.
<!--quoteo(post=1692916:date=Nov 8 2008, 06:35 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Nov 8 2008, 06:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692916"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I stand corrected, the state of Florida approved the amendment, which prohibits same sex marriages. But ya'll know what I meant.
No one forced their religion on anyone else, I merely made a guess as to why the amendment was approved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They forced the dictates of their religion on someone else, which is even worse because if they had forced the whole religion at least the recipients would end up in heaven.
<!--quoteo(post=1692916:date=Nov 9 2008, 12:35 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Nov 9 2008, 12:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692916"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I stand corrected, the state of Florida approved the amendment, which prohibits same sex marriages. But ya'll know what I meant.
No one forced their religion on anyone else, I merely made a guess as to why the amendment was approved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you need to make your position clear here, Depot- Are you for this amendment or against it?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692820:date=Nov 7 2008, 05:34 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(juice @ Nov 7 2008, 05:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692820"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Government shouldn't even be in the business of marriage in the first place.
What's that? You're getting married? Aw, that's a good little citizen. Here's a treat for you...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It makes sense financially. If I make 70,000 dollars a year but my wife is in med school and has a large debt from school previously then it makes more sense to treat us as a single entity since I wouldn't be able to afford taxes and paying off debt.
<!--quoteo(post=1692962:date=Nov 9 2008, 09:30 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 9 2008, 09:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692962"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It makes sense financially. If I make 70,000 dollars a year but my wife is in med school and has a large debt from school previously then it makes more sense to treat us as a single entity since I wouldn't be able to afford taxes and paying off debt.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah but that could just as easily be accomplished through a civil union.
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
<!--quoteo(post=1693005:date=Nov 9 2008, 04:30 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Nov 9 2008, 04:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693005"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah but that could just as easily be accomplished through a civil union.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which from what I understand was also outlawed in some states for homosexual partners.
As long as there is no legal difference between "marriage" and "civil union," religion can keep the term marriage. If the church doesn't wish to marry two people because of their views, that's the church's business. Just as long as there's a non-religious equivalent. I doubt most homosexuals would WANT to be married by an institution that declares them to be "abominations."
<!--quoteo(post=1692801:date=Nov 7 2008, 03:34 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 7 2008, 03:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692801"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...] Freedom is what the U.S. stand for, and so should the member states. A state whose population does not love and embrace freedom is not worthy of the U.S.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My research found that voters in twenty-six other states have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage PRIOR to this election. So we should just abolish their statehoods then?
"But they did it too" is a pretty poor excuse. Hell, the other states could argue that they passed their amendments in far less progressive times. Though I guess that if they did, they would have to prove that we actually live in more progressive times now.
It's not an excuse, it just shows that a majority of the states support it. I haven't researched the remaining 24 states, but I wonder what they have in the works.
I think the majority of the people that support this proposal and have already passed it probably have a lot of difficulty separating their spiritual feelings from the legal aspect.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1693005:date=Nov 9 2008, 04:30 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Nov 9 2008, 04:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693005"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah but that could just as easily be accomplished through a civil union.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Segregation was done away with a long time ago. It's a reasonable idea in theory, but separate but equal never is.
<!--quoteo(post=1693082:date=Nov 10 2008, 01:19 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 10 2008, 01:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Segregation was done away with a long time ago. It's a reasonable idea in theory, but separate but equal never is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right but this wouldn't be seperate because if the government got out of marriage then everyone would have civil unions. It wouldn't be marriage for some, civil unions for others.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1693084:date=Nov 10 2008, 02:31 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Nov 10 2008, 02:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693084"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Right but this wouldn't be separate because if the government got out of marriage then everyone would have civil unions. It wouldn't be marriage for some, civil unions for others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That would be fine if it was the way it worked in any state.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1693086:date=Nov 10 2008, 03:46 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 10 2008, 03:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693086"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That would be fine if it was the way it worked in any state.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> well, that was what he was pointing out.
Just have states stop granting ANYONE marriage licenses, and ONLY give out Civil Union Licenses.
thus dodging the bullet that is the inherent religiousness that is tied with the word marriage.
That's dodging the bullet quite expertly. People can still get married at the altar "in the eyes of God," and they can consider that to be theologically binding. Meanwhile, in order to be legally binding, they need to join in a civil union. Problem solved.
Now waiting for hell to freeze over and that might actually happen...
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
I don't think it'd work.
In California, after ###### marriage was legalised (and before it was gotten rid of again), marriage licenses issued by the state were gender neutral, i.e. they said "party A" and "party B" rather than "bride" and "groom". I assume this was done to save costs / bother of having to come up with wording for ###### weddings (bride and bride? groom and groom? I dunno) or just to save the costs of having different forms.
Anyway, a religious couple <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1239279.html" target="_blank">took issue</a> with not having "bride" and "groom" on the forms on the grounds that "Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them."
<a href="http://www.sacbee.com/1089/story/1293599.html" target="_blank">They won</a>, kinda. Rather than having "party a" and "party b" on the forms, the forms let you pick which you wanted to be.
Anyway the point is here that if such a ######storm can be kicked up over the state not officially recognising "bride and groom", there is absolutely no way that the state could get rid of using "marriage" as the official term.
Official "civil unions" and religious "marriages" are a great idea but it wouldn't work. For another example, see the reactions from religious groups on the removal (supposed removal anyway, I don't know if it actually is) of the word "christmas" from stores etc around christmas time (heh <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_christmas" target="_blank">war on christmas</a>).
Its a fine idea, but it will never happen. People in this country are bred for stupidity and when they hear that marriage is being "outlawed" they will go all foaming-at-the-mouth and completely ignore the fact that virtually nothing will have changed. Most people can't be bothered to put more thought into anything than the TV/Morning radio crew/pastor tells them to.
Its annoying that so many Christians seem to think its ok to push their religion on others, but what really bothers me that so many christian know so little about their religion that they believe Christmas has anything at all to do with Christ aside from the name.
Comments
They said if you lived in the bible belt or were a Southern Baptist you'd understand. I guess that's why it failed in Florida by a 2 to 1 margin.
Nice thing is, if you don't like Florida there's another 49 to choose from. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
Personally, I think its just too much of a change for some people to handle right now. I'm ashamed to say that my home state of Wisconsin also does not allow homosexual marriage or even civil unions. We just need to keep working at it and eventually these people will come around or die off.
[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am surmising the state of Florida overwhelmingly approved this proposal because of the Baptist's influence in the deep south. They justified voting against this proposal based largely on their interpretation of the bible.
That's just an opinion though... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
No one forced their religion on anyone else, I merely made a guess as to why the amendment was approved.
No one forced their religion on anyone else, I merely made a guess as to why the amendment was approved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They forced the dictates of their religion on someone else, which is even worse because if they had forced the whole religion at least the recipients would end up in heaven.
<!--quoteo(post=1692916:date=Nov 9 2008, 12:35 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Nov 9 2008, 12:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692916"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I stand corrected, the state of Florida approved the amendment, which prohibits same sex marriages. But ya'll know what I meant.
No one forced their religion on anyone else, I merely made a guess as to why the amendment was approved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you need to make your position clear here, Depot- Are you for this amendment or against it?
What's that? You're getting married? Aw, that's a good little citizen. Here's a treat for you...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It makes sense financially. If I make 70,000 dollars a year but my wife is in med school and has a large debt from school previously then it makes more sense to treat us as a single entity since I wouldn't be able to afford taxes and paying off debt.
Yeah but that could just as easily be accomplished through a civil union.
Which from what I understand was also outlawed in some states for homosexual partners.
Freedom is what the U.S. stand for, and so should the member states. A state whose population does not love and embrace freedom is not worthy of the U.S.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My research found that voters in twenty-six other states have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage PRIOR to this election. So we should just abolish their statehoods then?
I <u>used</u> to respect you.... ... .. .
I think the majority of the people that support this proposal and have already passed it probably have a lot of difficulty separating their spiritual feelings from the legal aspect.
Segregation was done away with a long time ago. It's a reasonable idea in theory, but separate but equal never is.
Right but this wouldn't be seperate because if the government got out of marriage then everyone would have civil unions. It wouldn't be marriage for some, civil unions for others.
That would be fine if it was the way it worked in any state.
well, that was what he was pointing out.
Just have states stop granting ANYONE marriage licenses, and ONLY give out Civil Union Licenses.
thus dodging the bullet that is the inherent religiousness that is tied with the word marriage.
Now waiting for hell to freeze over and that might actually happen...
In California, after ###### marriage was legalised (and before it was gotten rid of again), marriage licenses issued by the state were gender neutral, i.e. they said "party A" and "party B" rather than "bride" and "groom". I assume this was done to save costs / bother of having to come up with wording for ###### weddings (bride and bride? groom and groom? I dunno) or just to save the costs of having different forms.
Anyway, a religious couple <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1239279.html" target="_blank">took issue</a> with not having "bride" and "groom" on the forms on the grounds that "Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them."
<a href="http://www.sacbee.com/1089/story/1293599.html" target="_blank">They won</a>, kinda. Rather than having "party a" and "party b" on the forms, the forms let you pick which you wanted to be.
Anyway the point is here that if such a ######storm can be kicked up over the state not officially recognising "bride and groom", there is absolutely no way that the state could get rid of using "marriage" as the official term.
Official "civil unions" and religious "marriages" are a great idea but it wouldn't work. For another example, see the reactions from religious groups on the removal (supposed removal anyway, I don't know if it actually is) of the word "christmas" from stores etc around christmas time (heh <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_christmas" target="_blank">war on christmas</a>).
Its annoying that so many Christians seem to think its ok to push their religion on others, but what really bothers me that so many christian know so little about their religion that they believe Christmas has anything at all to do with Christ aside from the name.
And never say never. It's just going to take a while. A long while. And the example of more secularised countries.