FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » California Proposition 8 (Page 7)

  This topic comprises 30 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  28  29  30   
Author Topic: California Proposition 8
Elmer's Glue
Member
Member # 9313

 - posted      Profile for Elmer's Glue   Email Elmer's Glue         Edit/Delete Post 
It's the same fountain. It's just called a drinking fountain rather than a water fountain when they drink from it.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
It's the same water, just coming out of a different spout. Why were those colored folks so upset about that?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmer's Glue
Member
Member # 9313

 - posted      Profile for Elmer's Glue   Email Elmer's Glue         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmer's Glue:
I get, I do. I just don't think anyone should get too upset about it.

Just thought I'd say this again.
No need to get all upset about 8 passing. Try to repeal it in a few years. For now just accept a compromise.

Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
chosha
Member
Member # 10923

 - posted      Profile for chosha           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Calling all those who supported Proposition 8 bigots is akin to them calling those who opposed it family haters.

All supporters? No. But those who used lies and fear-mongering to win support against a group of people with a different viewpoint? Absolutely.

And people who oppose Prop 8 can hardly be family-haters. Many or most of them are fighting to preserve their families and their marriages, or the ability to have and protect those things in the future. They love their family so much they want to join together in marriage. They are not the ones hating on families.

Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
chosha
Member
Member # 10923

 - posted      Profile for chosha           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmer's Glue:
Not accepting Civil Unions as good enough is all about fostering a pro-gay viewpoint.

No, it's not. You don't have to be pro-something in order to treat people fairly. This is about equality and respect and religious tolerance.

The more this goes on, the more the rhetoric of the battle against racial equality turns up. Some white people argued and fought because they felt like a black being equal to them was going to take something from them, take their rights, when really all they lost was a privileged position they had no right to in the first place - best seats, best food, less waiting, more convenience and so it goes on.

Straight people don't have any more right to the institution of marriage than gay people. So you're religious? So what? So are lots of gay people and not every church that marries people has doctrine against homosexuality. Besides, where's the fight against athiests getting married and tarnishing up what marriage means? They don't see marriage as a three way contract between a husband, a wife and God. Why not assign civil unions to them? What about quickie marriages in Vegas? Should they automatically be changed to civil unions? They certainly cheapen marriage.

And you might think those are great ideas for the preservation of the so very holy state of matrimony, but are you campaigning for them? No. But when it is gay people who want equal status under the law, oh then some LDS will fight tooth and nail to give more money than everyone else to fight the good fight.

The more this campaign revved up, the more money that was donated, the more that the Church leaders lent their pressure and influence to making members in CA feel that they had to vote one way, despite their conscience, the more ashamed I've felt to be a member and associated with this kind of behaviour. The campaign was effective and certainly well-funded, but not honest, and not loving.

Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmer's Glue:
Just thought I'd say this again.
No need to get all upset about 8 passing. Try to repeal it in a few years. For now just accept a compromise. [/QB]

Sure, it's cool. Hey, if women can't vote, they can try again in a couple years. If black people can't go to the same school as white people, there are other equally good schools they can go to.

Putting off civil rights for convenience of compromise has never made it right, and it's never made people who want to stop those rights less prejudiced.

People who are against same-sex marriage are prejudiced against gay people. Period. There is no valid excuse. If people don't like being called prejudiced, they can stop acting that way.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmer's Glue
Member
Member # 9313

 - posted      Profile for Elmer's Glue   Email Elmer's Glue         Edit/Delete Post 
See, I've mostly argued on your side of the issue. I see both sides of the joust. (yay Angel reference!)
I just don't really care either way.
This side is so much more work.


What religions don't have doctrine against homosexuality?
I don't consider it good enough when it is these religions that are made just to be tolerant of everyone so they will come to church.

Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
People who are against same-sex marriage are prejudiced against gay people. Period. There is no valid excuse. If people don't like being called prejudiced, they can stop acting that way.
Really? That's how you view other people?

That's so sad. As an aspiring author, I believe people always see themselves as the hero. Whatever they're doing is the right thing, or the unfortunate thing that must be done for the greater good, or the thing that everyone does but no one admits to. Even when people admit to doing the wrong thing they have a reason why it's not really wrong. They're bucking the establishment, or standing up for the underdog, or trying something new.

I think there are plenty of ways people can oppose gay marriage without disliking gay people or wanting to hurt them. Many of them even see themselves as the last line of defense between the nation and the end of God's protection for the nation. They're trying to save you from destruction.

Feel free to disagree with them. But it might hurt less if you see them as they see themselves, just for a moment.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmer's Glue:
See, I've mostly argued on your side of the issue. I see both sides of the joust. (yay Angel reference!)
I just don't really care either way.
This side is so much more work.


What religions don't have doctrine against homosexuality?
I don't consider it good enough when it is these religions that are made just to be tolerant of everyone so they will come to church.

Hinduism, which is one of the oldest faiths in the world - its scriptures date back to 1500 BCE - doesn't have a doctrine against homosexuality. In fact, two (major) male gods marry and conceive a child together (they're gods, after all). Oh, wait, but that religion doesn't count 'cause its followers are mostly brown, and maybe polytheistic, right?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What religions don't have doctrine against homosexuality?
There's a difference between having a doctrine against homosexuality and fighting for the preservation of traditional marriage.

Recognizing that homosexuality is a sin does not equate to legislating a narrow definition of marriage.

IIRC, Hinduism doesn't outlaw some forms of homosexuality (though, I *think* that participants generally try to take on aspects of the opposite gender; that is, instead of perceiving themselves as male, they perceive themselves as female, despite biology).

Judaism also isn't necessarily anti-homosexual, if I understand Lisa's arguments correctly. (And I'm not honestly sure I do)

Episcopalianism and some forms of Methodism have also ameliorated the traditionally hard line Christians have taken against homosexuality.

quote:
Straight people don't have any more right to the institution of marriage than gay people.
Well-- it depends on how you're defining some terms. As was shown earlier in this thread, marriage between a man and a woman is a civil right (Loving versus Virginia); some state appellate courts have found that the decision made in Loving versus VA does not extend to same-sex couples.

The "right" to heterosexual marriage comes from the combination of two things, IMO-- biology, and the cultural desire to protect progeny and property. Marriage in many cultures throughout history has been upheld by various governmental forms to accomplish this; and until recently, those particular elements have only been available to heterosexual couples.

There's a tremendous cultural weight behind the idea that marriage is inherently between a man and a woman. Even in Greece, despite their misogyny and predilection for homosexuality, men didn't marry other men.

This is to point to the idea that civil marriage is not only religious; there are cultural elements to our concept of marriage that deny the ability of homosexuals to participate, according to our feeling of what marriage actually is.

quote:
...where's the fight against athiests getting married and tarnishing up what marriage means? They don't see marriage as a three way contract between a husband, a wife and God. Why not assign civil unions to them? What about quickie marriages in Vegas? Should they automatically be changed to civil unions? They certainly cheapen marriage.
This is, in fact, an excellent way to make my point above-- society recognizes and approves these marriages despite lack of religion because they meet the fundamental qualification: the couple is dual-gendered.

Proposition 8, as I understand it, legislates the traditional view of marriage. It does not, however remove any of the rights granted to Californians already involved in civil unions/domestic partnerships-- which, from the state's view, have equivalent rights to marriages. Nor does it restrict other Californians from engaging in civil unions/domestic partnerships.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
IIRC, Hinduism doesn't outlaw some forms of homosexuality (though, I *think* that participants generally try to take on aspects of the opposite gender; that is, instead of perceiving themselves as male, they perceive themselves as female, despite biology).

You're wrong. Hinduism doesn't outlaw any forms of homosexuality, and there's none of this crap about "trying to take on aspects of the opposite gender" in any text or document discussing Hinduism & homosexuality that I or my husband have seen.

Also, apparently there's a famous king in Hindu mythology who was the progeny of two women. So children for same-sexed couples is a go for both genders.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
I certainly could be wrong-- but here's an article to educate yourself upon.

Homosexuality in Hinduism

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow - that article says so much about Hinduism that I never knew! Despite me having read several scholarly books on Hinduism & homosexuality.</sarcasm>

The Indian people are, as a general rule, deeply prejudced against homosexuals. That's not the same thing as the faith being against homosexuals. The Manusmrti referenced in that article is not a core text of Hinduism - it's similar in nature to religious writings by, say, C.S. Lewis (a crazy, spiteful version of Lewis). It's much more recent than any of the core texts, does not come from the oral tradition, and isn't accepted as valid by any educated Hindus. I'm not familiar enough with Christian writing to give an exact analogy, but think of some book written back in the day that goes on & on about how women are inferior to men by God's will, and how all colored people are God's gift to the white man as slaves, and you'll have a good idea of what the Manusmrti is like.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm willing to learn-- can you link to some articles that demonstrate why you hold the opinion you hold?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
Love's Rite: Same Sex Marriage in India and the West is one of the better academic (and accessible) overviews of the topic, but it's a book. Maybe you can try reading a bit of it through google. It also has a fantastic bibliography.

The wiki article on the Manu Smriti covers the history of that set of codes fairly well, as well as the controversy surrounding it. It doesn't play up the fact that it was Western Indiologist in the late 18th century that really brought the book into prominence as much as I would hope; it's sort of like how the timing of Christmas has thrust Hanukkah more into the limelight than the faith would do naturally.

The wiki article on homosexuality & Hinduism is pretty decent, and is a good starting point. I particularly like how it deals with Hinduism & current Indian/Hindu culture as separate issues for homosexuality, 'cause they really are. The first is not a problem, and in fact you can make a very strong case that Hinduism is accepting and welcoming of homosexuality. The second is a major problem, although the younger generations in India (in the cities) are becoming more tolerant.

I'll see if I can find any more decent articles on the web, although for controversial topics such as these, I really do think academic books published through a legitimate academic press are your best bet for getting non-biased information.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
All right-- here are the issues you raised with my point about Hinduism:

quote:
Hinduism doesn't outlaw any forms of homosexuality, and there's none of this crap about "trying to take on aspects of the opposite gender" in any text or document discussing Hinduism & homosexuality that I or my husband have seen.
I don't know why you call it "crap;" in several of the links you provided, it specifies that the third gender cross dresses, and if male, they are sometimes castrated.

Note:

quote:
Another important character, Sikhandi, is born female, but raised as a boy. Sihkandi's father, King Drupada, had begged the god Mahadeva to give him a son, to which Mahadeva replied: "Thou shalt have a child who will be a female and male. Desist, O king, it will not be otherwise." When Sikhandi comes of age and marries, Sikhandi's wife "soon came to know that [Sikhandi] was a woman like herself." Fleeing from the unnamed wife's enraged father, Sikhandi encounters a male Yaksha (nature spirit) in the forest, and they agree to swap sexes. Now in a male body, Sikhandi proves to his father-in-law that he is truly male, after the latter sends "a number of young ladies of great beauty" to Sikhandi to test him. They report back that he is "a powerful person of the masculine sex," and Sikhandi becomes a skilled and famous warrior, playing a pivotal role in the war.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 11808

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen         Edit/Delete Post 
Since it seems to me that unfamiliarity with California politics and California law may have made some attach too much significance to yesterday's vote, I shall explain these a bit and copy over a post I made on the legal aspects.

As for the politics, justices of the California Supreme Court are elected officials who have to run for office periodically and can be recalled if voters disapprove of their decisions. And Governor Schwarzenegger is a Republican governor in a state dominated by the Democratic Party, which would be glad to use his actions regarding Proposition 8 as a means of getting him out of office and replacing him with a Democrat. So both the justices and the governor oppose Proposition 8, but they will treat it in the manner of the hero of some horror film confronted by a poisonous vampire. That is, they will attempt to drive a stake through its heart without suffering injury themselves.

A few of the legal aspects are as follows:
quote:
Few things are as good or as bad as they seem at first, and I wish those posting to this thread had remembered that. The voting yesterday represented a single skirmish in a cultural war, in which both the immediate effect and the final outcome of what happened are uncertain. But with nine million votes counted, out of an expected thirteen million, it seems that Proposition 8 has indeed prevailed in the popular vote by roughly 52% to 48%. And at least we shall hear no more about how California voters have resoundingly rejected same sex marriage by 61% to 39% as in the passage of Proposition 22, as 52% to 48% is hardly an overwhelming mandate for change.

As to what happens next, the most relevant quote I have found is from the Wikipedia article,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters... The court denied the petition without comment. The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difference this distinction between an amendment and a revision makes is that the California Constitution prohibits voters from revising the California Constitution by a voter initiated proposition. Any revision must be made either by a proposition approved by the legislature and the governor and then submitted to the voters for approval, or by a constitutional convention. So if the California Supreme Court now rules Proposition 8 was an attempted revision of the California Constitution, it is legally dead and will never take effect. And the California Supreme Court has in this case merely done so far what it has usually done in the past with legally invalid propositions: let them appear on the ballot, see if the voters reject them, and then strike them down if they pass. On the other hand, the California Supreme Court could also decide that Proposition 8 is a valid amendment to the Constitution and let it go into effect. But for the moment I expect the parties which petitioned to have Proposition 8 removed from the ballot will immediately petition to have it invalidated as an attempted revision to the California Constitution; and now that it has passed the California Supreme Court will almost certainly accept the case, and schedule arguments, and eventually issue some sort of ruling.

Anyway the first legal question to be settled is whether Proposition 8 is legally valid at all. If it is indeed found to be so, which depends upon the California Supreme Court finding that eliminating same sex marriage in California is a minor adjustment to the Constitution rather than something significantly different, then the question will arise whether its effect would be retroactive to marriages contracted in the last few months. So far half the constitutional scholars I have read who have commented on this matter have said that courts have sometimes ruled that such provisions can be retroactive, while the other half have said a measure can only be retroactive if it says so explicitly. And of course the California Supreme Court could also rule that, while Proposition 8 would apply retroactively, it was improperly approved and so invalid because the title and ballot argument for the measure failed to make this possibility clear to voters beforehand. After all, if the voters had thought Proposition 8 would upset the lives of same sex married couples who had bought houses together and conceived children in the belief their marriages were legal, then they might not have passed it.

So until the courts do their work, it might be better if proponents and opponents of this measure refrained both from unjustified elation or despair, and from equally unjustified personal attacks on the other side.

[ November 05, 2008, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
This is sad.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
All right-- here are the issues you raised with my point about Hinduism:
quote:
Hinduism doesn't outlaw any forms of homosexuality, and there's none of this crap about "trying to take on aspects of the opposite gender" in any text or document discussing Hinduism & homosexuality that I or my husband have seen.
I don't know why you call it "crap;" in several of the links you provided, it specifies that the third gender cross dresses, and if male, they are sometimes castrated.
And here's what you said:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
IIRC, Hinduism doesn't outlaw some forms of homosexuality (though, I *think* that participants generally try to take on aspects of the opposite gender; that is, instead of perceiving themselves as male, they perceive themselves as female, despite biology).

It's not true that homosexual "participants generally try to tak on aspects of the opposite gender" and that male homosexuals "perceive themselves as female, despite biology", and to say so is crap. The third gender movement, while related to homosexuality, is not equivalent with homosexuality - unless you're calling everyone who's a cross-dresser or transgendered homosexual? The article I linked to is entitled "LGBT Issues and Hinduism" for a very good reason.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmer's Glue:
...
What religions don't have doctrine against homosexuality?
I don't consider it good enough when it is these religions that are made just to be tolerant of everyone so they will come to church.

Hinduism, which is one of the oldest faiths in the world - its scriptures date back to 1500 BCE - doesn't have a doctrine against homosexuality. In fact, two (major) male gods marry and conceive a child together (they're gods, after all). Oh, wait, but that religion doesn't count 'cause its followers are mostly brown, and maybe polytheistic, right?
Elmer's Glue also said "come to church", another reason why it probably doesn't count since IIRC, Hindu followers go to temples rather than churches.

IIRC, Taoism and Confucianism also do not have explicit mandates against homosexuality. Rather most of the anti-homosexuality in China can be traced back to the importation of Western ideas (both good (nationalism, democracy, science) and bad) during the period around the fall of the Manchu.

Re: the broader issue

A couple years back, I thought I would never live to see a black President. That's honestly kind of inspiring and raises my hopes for a similar entry of Asian political candidates in Canada (Our politicians are pretty much totally white with a few token minority candidates with no real power and some rather suspicious connections).

On the other hand, the passage of this kind of proposition in a "blue" state seems to highlight the virulent nature of anti-homosexuality that is much more alien to Canada. (Same-sex marriage is perfectly legal here, with a large marriage tourism industry for Americans too)

So two steps forward, one step back ... a mixed measure of applause for the US, I guess.

[ November 05, 2008, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lobo
Member
Member # 1761

 - posted      Profile for lobo           Edit/Delete Post 
Jhai - If you didn't act with such hostility, people might take you more seriously. Calm yourself brother...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
Mucus, I think I might have parsed that second sentence oddly. I read "these religions that are madejust to be tolerant of everyone" as a belief of Elmer's Glue that there aren't any non-modern religions (i.e. non-made ones) that accept homosexuality. I guess it could be a passive phrase, where the religions are being forced to be tolerant.

I'm not sure how you could force anything or anyone to be tolerant, but it sure would be nice to have that power. Poor religions, being forced to tolerate others!

And, not to hate on Taoism or Confucianism at all, but I suspect that Westerners are more willing to "accept" Hinduism as a true religion than either of the two homegrown Chinese faiths, if only because it's much more clear in the Hindu tradition that deities do exist.

I do wish Canada wasn't so cold - I visited Toronto this summer and had an absolutely lovely time. Maybe BC...

Edit: Lobo, I'm a gal, not a brother. And I don't think I've been any more hostile than the situation warranted. Saying "Hinduism doesn't outlaw some forms of homosexuality" strikes me as similar to saying, "well, some Christians aren't bigoted idiots." It's rude, and it gives the wrong impression about the facts of the situation. Hinduism doesn't outlaw any forms of homosexuality - in fact Hinduism isn't really big on outlawing anything.

[ November 05, 2008, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Jhai ]

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
I guess there are two points I should make explicit. By "those religions", I believe that Elmer's Glue really meant "those Christian sects" otherwise he wouldn't have limited the consequences to church going.

As for Westerners acceptance, the status of Taoism and Confucianism as religions or philosophical traditions can be debated (as is the complicated factor that they are not strictly doctrinal as are the Judeo-Christian faiths but are rather "roll-your-own"). In fact, I have no issue with the fact Confucianism is not a true religion, and I think that has been a good thing.

My point was not that Westerners should accept them as "true" religions, merely that they exist, occupy a religious-"like" role, largely ignore same-sex issues, and have existed for a very long time without having to be "forced" to accept homosexuality.

I suspect that as China develops over the next few decades, you'll see a rather surprisingly quick acceptance of ideas such as global warming, evolution, and same-sex issues without this kind of religious resistance whereas it remains to be seen when the United States will finally throw off this kind of thing for good (despite being substantially further ahead currently, on same-sex issues anyways).

Edit to add: The cold, you get used to it. You even start to like it [Wink]

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm not sure how you could force anything or anyone to be tolerant, but it sure would be nice to have that power.
Wow.

Yes, you've been uncivil and inflammatory. That it isn't "any more than the situation warranted" is a poor defense. Amazingly, calling people names is not as persuasive an argument as you might hope.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Clearly we have some work to do yet.

But look at it this way. The Civil Rights Act was signed during my lifetime and yesterday Virginia voted to elect a black man president of the United States. A generation ago, Barack Obama would have been sitting in the back of a bus.

Whatever you think of his politics, his election showed that Americans can overcome our fears. The arc of history does indeed bend toward justice.

Also, the social conservatives may have won some battles but they lost the Republican party. The "religious right" is no longer sufficient to win presidential elections.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
My point, Jhai, is to show that Hindu scripture seems to excuse homosexuality only in extreme circumstances (such as when only two females exist who can perpetuate the throne), or when one of the lovers is transformed, either literally or figuratively, into the opposite gender.

From what I can see, there is possible support for transgendered individuals, but little support for actual homosexuality.

What am I reading wrong?

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
kat, I never called Scott anything. I said that what he was saying was crap, which, frankly, it was. If you don't know something to be true, and you can't spend two minutes checking on wikipedia, why bother posting it just to spread misinformation? And that's ignoring his apparent confusion between transgender and homosexual, which is a pretty major mistake to make in a discussion about homosexuality.

I'm not sure what you have against tolerance of homosexuals, but, um, whatever.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Amazingly, calling people names is not as persuasive an argument as you might hope.
It seems to have worked for Proposition 8.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Where has Jhai called anyone a name? She's denigrated an argument that's based on an ignorance of Hinduism, and you might think she went to far in doing so, but I don't see her calling people names anywhere.

edit: beaten to it

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
A generation ago, Barack Obama would have been sitting in the back of a bus.
Probably closer to two generations ago. [Smile]
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote:
A generation ago, Barack Obama would have been sitting in the back of a bus.
Probably closer to two generations ago. [Smile]
At the time Barack Obama was born (1961), his parents marriage would have been illegal in nearly half of the US states. Buses were desegregated in Alabama only 5 years before he was born. The Civil Rights act was signed when he was 3 years old. One generation ago is dead on. This change has occurred during his lifetime, during my lifetime.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
A generation is about twenty-five years in the United States. Obama's parents' generation is more than one generation ago.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blindsay
Member
Member # 11787

 - posted      Profile for blindsay   Email blindsay         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:
kat, I never called Scott anything. I said that what he was saying was crap, which, frankly, it was. If you don't know something to be true, and you can't spend two minutes checking on wikipedia, why bother posting it just to spread misinformation? And that's ignoring his apparent confusion between transgender and homosexual, which is a pretty major mistake to make in a discussion about homosexuality.

I'm not sure what you have against tolerance of homosexuals, but, um, whatever.

Jhai, Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE and can hardly be used to present hard facts unless the sources for the statements are shown below in the sources section. I could log on right now and edit any page I wanted. In fact, a few years ago someone edited the thread for "DNA" with the statement "I $%&# on eggs!" Imagine the look on my face when I saw that. [Big Grin]
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
Scott, yes, you're reading the big picture wrong, but I'm having difficulty in finding unbiased articles (in either direction) on the interwebs. Go figure.

Basically, homosexuality is not mentioned much in the core Hindu scriptures, but where it is, it is not seen negatively. Because mentions are scarce, it takes a fair amount of reading of the scriptures (or reading a book on the subject that quotes appropriately, such as Love's Rite) to get a big picture of the Hindu viewpoint on the subject. And all of it has to read through the larger issues in Hinduism - the particular ones relating to this issue would be how Hinduism views family, love, sexual relationships, and marriage.

At the very least, I think it's pretty clear that homosexual sexual relations were viewed acceptable in the religion, given what the Kama Sutra says on the topic (and other texts, too), as well as all the erotic carvings on temples in the South. I believe both of these were mentioned in the LGBT & Hinduism article I linked. Making the case for same-gendered marriage is a bit more difficult - again, because homosexuality isn't really a major topic in Hinduism so you have to hunt - but I believe the case can and has been made in various academic texts such as Love's Rite.

To address your point of homosexuality only being accepted in dire circumstances or in transgendered individuals... First, nearly all of the Hindu scripture is about dire circumstances - these are epics on the level of Gilgamesh & the stories of Greek and Nordic gods, development through over a thousand years of oral tradition. Things that weren't dire circumstances didn't get written down, if they were ever remembered in the first place.

Second, the transgendered issue arises because Hindus of ancient yore did know it takes a man & a woman to reproduce. Since most of the scriptures focus on duty to family, progeny being born to fulfill needs of the universe or kingdom, and so forth, having children is a pretty important thing, and thus the need to change a woman into a man or vice versa to get a kid.

That's not to discount the role that the third-gender has and does play in India, but I don't feel I know enough about that topic to do more than point you at resources if you're interested in learning more.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
kmbboots/Rabbit: This kind of change is very heartening, makes me feel a little optimistic that we may someday see a Chinese Prime Minister or President.

Although, I suspect that the accusations then would be less about "palling around with terrorists" or "prayer mats in the White House" and more about being a Chinese sleeper agent or some other crap.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
The possibility for specific inaccuracy on wikipedia does not stop it from being, on many topics, the quickest and most accurate place to find an informal overview.

However, if it makes you feel better, most of the random sites you find on Google if you type in obvious search terms for the topic in question mention that the accepted Hindu religious texts take no negative position, and that there are many Hindus who view it as being absolutely no problem. Just take your pick of which site you'll view as authoritative enough [Wink]

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
One generation ago is dead on. This change has occurred during his lifetime, during my lifetime.
You're just old. [Smile] Someone born in the early sixties [Obama] could easily be a grandparent today.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by blindsay:
quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:
kat, I never called Scott anything. I said that what he was saying was crap, which, frankly, it was. If you don't know something to be true, and you can't spend two minutes checking on wikipedia, why bother posting it just to spread misinformation? And that's ignoring his apparent confusion between transgender and homosexual, which is a pretty major mistake to make in a discussion about homosexuality.

I'm not sure what you have against tolerance of homosexuals, but, um, whatever.

Jhai, Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE and can hardly be used to present hard facts unless the sources for the statements are shown below in the sources section. I could log on right now and edit any page I wanted. In fact, a few years ago someone edited the thread for "DNA" with the statement "I $%&# on eggs!" Imagine the look on my face when I saw that. [Big Grin]
Um, yes. That wikipedia can be edited is a known fact. That doesn't mean that it's not a good way to quickly check some information. Of course, it does mean that the value you give the information you find there should be considered carefully, and that you shouldn't ever use it as a academic citation (which the authors of some recently released federal reports on the state of wholesale power markets in the US could stand to learn, but I digress...). Like I mentioned earlier to Scott, homosexuality & Hinduism is a charged topic, so it's hard to find good internet articles on the subject. However, I read the wiki article that I pointed him to before I linked to it, and nothing struck me as wrong when compared to what I have learned through scholarly articles and college courses. Tidbit: while doing preliminary research for one of those classes on the origins of Jainism, I came across some incredibly wrong stuff on Wikipedia - that it predates Hinduism and a bunch of other garbage. Hadn't thought that would be controversial enough for someone to edit posts about, but apparently it was...

Edit: and this time fugu beat me to it

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
MattP:
quote:
Can you quote any factually questionable statements from the "no" campaign? I'm not so concerned about "nasty". I'm looking for dishonest. Mean people suck, but liars are much worse, IMO.
Watch the "Home Invasion" video on youtube. I don't think any reasonable person can say that video is not being deliberately dishonest in it's portrayal.

Mighty Cow:
quote:
I just call it like I see it. I can see zero reason to deny marriage to gay couples except bigotry.
You need to keep looking, when a person can paint an entire group with the same color, they are almost ALWAYS wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by chosha:
[Wall Bash] Just got to the last line of my post and then accidentally erased it. [Cry] On the bright side you get the shorter version.

BlackBlade: That same God who (in the context of your Church is true 100% scenario) told Church leaders to 'block gay marriage' also provided scripture in D&C 134:9 that says:

'We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.'

Proposition 8 is all about fostering the viewpoint of one religious society (or several who have become one over this issue) to the detriment of the spiritual and civil rights of others. Same-sex marriage does not threaten straight marriage. It does not cheapen it, just as marriage between two Hindu does not cheapen Christian marriage, just as inter-racial marriage does not threaten or tarnish intra-racial marriage.

Marriage has meaning in the law and it delivers a range of rights and understandings in society. This makes it a civil matter and the seperation of church and state comes into play. The Church leaders, in following what they believe to be God's command, should have limited their actions to blocking it within the Church. And that's it.

Nothing has made me more angry in this whole campaign than the use of the song 'Save the Family' to support Yes on 8. These ARE families. They have partners and children they love and should be able to protect under the law. Some of these people are already legally married and Proposition 8 seeks to strip that from them. It's a really effective way to make someone understand that they are a second class citizen, with a second class family, who deserves only second class rights.

'Separate but equal' approaches have never succeeded in delivering equal rights and why anyone imagines they will here is beyond me. Maybe it's as simple as saying that 'separate but equal' is not really about providing equal rights, but more about appearing to do so.

As long as marriage has meaning in the law it is a civil matter. Whatever meaning anyone, religious or not, chooses to assign to it beyond that is up to them.

I have not completely reconciled my beliefs of when the church is imposing on other people's spiritual rights, and when they are protecting their own. I can't effectively argue with you on this topic.

Marriage however clearly is not a RIGHT in these United States as anti-polygamy laws are still on the books as they have been for over one hundred years.

It is true separate but equal has not worked in the past, but I think it's worth noting that it has only been tried once and that attempt was clearly designed to keep minorities specifically African Americans as second class citizens. It was never truly tried as a meaningful compromise.

I guess I am reminded of Neil A. Maxwell's words where he said, "Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted...This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.

Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened....

Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel."

I hate the emerging trend that when a believer cannot scientifically prove a belief, and says, "I can't prove I'm right, but I must vote my conscience and as God has directed me," that somehow those people are to be ignored, marginalized, or even disdained. Proposition 8 was a democratic measure, it represents the voice of the people.

If you don't like what proposition 8 does, get the support needed to have it democratically repealed. Don't rely on the executive or judicial branch to solve this problem. I think it's ridiculous how impotent our legislatures are becoming.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Jhai:

Thank you for that enlightening and respectful response.

I appreciate the correction.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
BB: so free speech is clearly not a right as anti-defamation laws are still on the books as they have been for over one hundred years? That's reasoning of the worst order for asserting it "clearly is not a right".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I hate the emerging trend that when a believer cannot scientifically prove a belief, and says, "I can't prove I'm right, but I must vote my conscience and as God has directed me," that somehow those people are to be ignored, marginalized, or even disdained.
And I love this trend, and greet it as the potential salvation of our civilization. It's particularly problematic when one's conscience contradicts what one believes God is saying. Don't hate the believers, I say, but go ahead and hate their belief.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Jhai:

Thank you for that enlightening and respectful response.

I appreciate the correction.

I'm not reading this as snarky, but, either way, you're welcome.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
BB: so free speech is clearly not a right as anti-defamation laws are still on the books as they have been for over one hundred years? That's reasoning of the worst order for asserting it "clearly is not a right".

Free speech isn't a right fugu. Granted I am only thinking of this briefly but I cannot conceive of a "right" that does not have some sort of amendment to it. You can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater. We can either speak of marriage as an absolute right, or one that is currently amended and discuss which amendments make sense and which do not.

Tom: That's fine you feel that way, I just hope you push that belief with the ballot box always.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I hate the emerging trend that when a believer cannot scientifically prove a belief, and says, "I can't prove I'm right, but I must vote my conscience and as God has directed me," that somehow those people are to be ignored, marginalized, or even disdained.
And I love this trend, and greet it as the potential salvation of our civilization. It's particularly problematic when one's conscience contradicts what one believes God is saying. Don't hate the believers, I say, but go ahead and hate their belief.
Agreed.

Although I don't see this trend happening, I wish it would. And if it is, I hope it continues.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, always. It's obviously futile in my lifetime, but maybe I can help create a future in which those of my children's children who get married in churches won't be allowed to share insurance policies without jumping through all kinds of legal hoops intended to demonstrate their second-class status.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
BB: so free speech is clearly not a right as anti-defamation laws are still on the books as they have been for over one hundred years? That's reasoning of the worst order for asserting it "clearly is not a right".

Free speech isn't a right fugu. Granted I am only thinking of this briefly but I cannot conceive of a "right" that does not have some sort of amendment to it. You can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater. We can either speak of marriage as an absolute right, or one that is currently amended and discuss which amendments make sense and which do not.

Tom: That's fine you feel that way, I just hope you push that belief with the ballot box always.

Just because a right has restrictions (in the case of free speech, time/manner/place restrictions) doesn't fail to make it a right.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
...
Proposition 8 was a democratic measure, it represents the voice of the people.

If you don't like what proposition 8 does, get the support needed to have it democratically repealed. Don't rely on the executive or judicial branch to solve this problem. I think it's ridiculous how impotent our legislatures are becoming.

Honestly, as a minority, I find the idea of voting on minority rights pretty distasteful as is the idea that minorities should rightly have to beg a majority to allow us to have rights. I'm glad that Canada doesn't really have this tradition.

It may indeed be the voice of the people to take away minority rights, but thats why our systems have things like the Bill of Rights or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect minority rights. In general, the judicial branch is a perfectly valid and good way of approaching this problem and I don't see any reason why minorities should go out of their way to avoid it.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Unicorn Feelings
Member
Member # 11784

 - posted      Profile for Unicorn Feelings   Email Unicorn Feelings         Edit/Delete Post 
Correct me if I am wrong...

#1) The LDS Church spent over $50 million dollars trying to influence their desired outcome in California.

#2) The LDS Church has invested over $8 billion dollars in the Stock Market.

#3) The LDS Church is worth over $50 billion dollars.

#4) The LDS Church claims a Christian Moral Authority.

#5) The LDS Church believes the Scripture about Homosexuality carries much, much, much more weight than the Scripture about Greed and the Need to aquire that which you don't Need.

Judge not lest you be Judged.

Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I guess I am reminded of Neil A. Maxwell's words where he said, "Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted...This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.

Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened....

Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel."

I hate the emerging trend that when a believer cannot scientifically prove a belief, and says, "I can't prove I'm right, but I must vote my conscience and as God has directed me," that somehow those people are to be ignored, marginalized, or even disdained.

This "emerging trend" is the result of religion starting to lose its taboo status as a topic for criticism. Opposition to religious beliefs results from those beliefs being unsubstantiated. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about this standard. My opposition to your beliefs has nothing to do with the fact that they have the property of being religious.

[ November 05, 2008, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Threads ]

Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 30 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  28  29  30   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2