Crash: It is one of those lively debates without the heavy paper work in PhDs. It is one of those elective where I can sit back and enjoy the action, in-action and reaction. I found the description below, but i think this was different text few years back when I took it.
Central to our program is the consideration of how gender interacts with race, class, ethnicity, age, ability, and sexuality. Students will explore the practices and processes that impact on women’s and men’s lives in historical, socio-economic, cultural and political contexts.
There are so many things to talk about with this where to start-
The biggest issue: same sex marriage is re defining the definition of a marriage. That is a fact. For thousands of years marriage has been an istitution that added a man and woman together to crate a stable until for raising children.
Q: So, as a society are we ok with redifining marriage.
In California ( the most liberal state in the us) they were not able to democraticly pass same sex marriage (prop 8 a few years ago)
A: the majority of people in the us still belive the definition of marriage is still 1 man one woman.
Conclusion-. Imo- the biggest issue with the ruling is the supreme court bypassed the democratic process, and the will of the majority.
Q: Is same sex marriage a civil rights issue? Why/why not
Why- because they are people, and we are denying them a fundamental right as human beings
Why not- marriage is not a fundimental right for any person, it is a specific union of a man an woman, as historically understood, and there is no compelling reason to change that.
A: I don't know. Those of you who know me well know I have a very religious backround, and a pretty devout faith.
One of the problems ( on both sides of this issue) is there is so much hate. 1. People who claim to be "Christians" and are hateful to anyone have some serious questions they should ask themselves. The issue is, can u as a (-----insert religion---) legislate morality? Is it your job to make the people who do not conform to your belief live by your standard of pratice? I don't think it is.
2. You as someone who supports same sex marriage, - is it your job to change this minds of these back water christians, by any means possible, even if it means closing theor busniess, or filing lawsuits agonist a church because they "hate" your lifestyle? I don't think so- just go on and do what your going to do, why involve everyone else?
In conclusion - as a bible following Christian ( who still messes.up all the time) I song think you should be a hibitual thief. It would grate agonist the core of your being. In a similar manner, I belive you can insert any sin described in the bible for theif- homosexuality is no different,and shouldn't be treated as some separate worse thing.
I also believe it is my progitive to not a prove of any of these sins in privite, as long as it doesn't manifest it's self as hate.
I don't think it makes any difference in the us weather or not same sex marriage is legal. We have long since passed that threshold of morality where that should be an issue, I still would not privately vote for it, but that is my progitive in the democratic process.
So really, in light if all this, the real victims here are the gay rights movment and democracy . The GRM lost the chance to democraticly win over the population, and democracy has twice in two days overstepped it's constational boundaries.
Ad a side note- it is intresting that the same week as this huge news, the Pentagon released a finance report showing like an 8 trillion dollar discrepancy. ( I haven't fact checked this so meh) if it is true, is there anyone who really thinks that was a coincidence?
Tl:Dr
The us government is F'd. Hate is wrong- do what you want and leave other people alone.
His political moves have no logic, I could write a list a mile long about it. I'm a conservative at heart in many ways, but his bastardization of Canada... painful, to say the least.
Essentially, he's attempting to abolish our rights & freedoms piece by piece while painting himself as a superhero. It could even, in some fucked up way, be forgivable if he had done something productive for our country. Our debt has shot through the fucking roof under his regime, with seemingly no plan to fix it.
The thing about national debt- is it takes 5-7 years for most economic changes to take effec, or so I've read. Not that I know anything about him, or am saying anything about him. Ha
There are so many things to talk about with this where to start-
Q: So, as a society are we ok with redifining marriage.
In California ( the most liberal state in the us) they were not able to democraticly pass same sex marriage (prop 8 a few years ago)
A: the majority of people in the us still belive the definition of marriage is still 1 man one woman.
Conclusion-. Imo- the biggest issue with the ruling is the supreme court bypassed the democratic process, and the will of the majority.
If the majority of population voting has no actual knowledge about the subject they are voting on and base their arguments purely on religion, its not a democratic process because informed consent does not account religion due to USA being a secular nation.
With no informed consent, there is no democracy, so christians have two options here:
1. Change USA into a Christian State.
2. Provide scientific studies that back up their claims.
There are so many things to talk about with this where to start-
Q: So, as a society are we ok with redifining marriage.
In California ( the most liberal state in the us) they were not able to democraticly pass same sex marriage (prop 8 a few years ago)
A: the majority of people in the us still belive the definition of marriage is still 1 man one woman.
Conclusion-. Imo- the biggest issue with the ruling is the supreme court bypassed the democratic process, and the will of the majority.
If the majority of population voting has no actual knowledge about the subject they are voting on and base their arguments purely on religion, its not a democratic process because informed consent does not account religion due to USA being a secular nation.
With no informed consent, there is no democracy, so christians have two options here:
1. Change USA into a Christian State.
2. Provide scientific studies that back up their claims.
This is incorrect. The beauty, and what I believe will be the ultimate demise of the democratic process is that I don't have to be informed, I don't have to vote with the masses, or with science, or with religion, I can simply vote how I fell I want to. It is the will of the people, not the will of the informed people.
As to point #2 - I don't need to back up any scientific studies to show that marrange ha's historically been a union between a man and woman, so I guess maybe I am misunderstanding the point u make here?
Also- what would you say I as a Christian voter, who votes for the definition of marriage to stay as the union of a man and woman, and not change to the union of any two people, am uninformed on (I am not saying that everyone who shares my view is informed, many of them are not, and some of them are actual biggots, but that's another spectrum of the argument)
Jester, i like your analysis on the definition Q and A.
I wonder about the definition of marriage as a social institution.
Who defines this "social institution"..and does the definition changes over time?
Maybe social union? Idk if my terminology was the best there. I would say society has defined it in various was, but the primary understandING of marriage devolved long before any real government, or established definition of marriage, out of a desire to see your offspring thrive. Idk. It's late, and I'll think more on this and get back to u.
The point on #2 is that we need a reason to resist change.
Well, marriage was defined the way it is for a reason, and the fact marriage was unchanged over the years, simply means there was no reason to change. Apparently, now there is.
And whats the reason not to change, to make opposition to the reason to change? (Tsc, sometimes repeating words are annoying to read....lots of reasons and change)
I'm just gonna chime in on this since we are getting so bible heavy. The bible actually talks about multiple types of marriage in itself, in which a man can have multiple wives, multiple wives with concubines, a slave wife, a pow wife in which he takes from where ever his holy conquest takes him, and if he rapes someone, that woman must become his wife, it never glorifies a type of marriage over the other, it's just society has shaped it into what it is now. I don't even understand why people still think the bible should be taken literally at all. A book that was written around the same time that niggas battling dragons and giants were debatable. Have you seen the descriptions of angels? Angels aren't people with wings, they are mother fucking floating eye wheels and shit, and beings with 4 faces. Go read Ezekiel and Deuteronomy. All of it is based of Egyptian allegory, put in a way that borrows from every other thing to help get more people following, nothing in it is really all that original, all the things you can think about that make Christianity Christianity was done before in someone else's religion. Not trying to blast anyone who is religious, just stating things I've observed over time. And fyi, I used to be hardcore christian, because my family was all christian(black people, I could go on about all this, but it would get too deep) When I was a kid I was the one to scold scold my siblings for talking in church and not listening.
Teh_dook- I'm not sure why you say this is getting bible heave. All that I have said is that I have a faith that shapes my view, certainly this is acceptable. I for one, have been extremely careful not to be hatefull, or negative, which I can't say the same for you.
You want to talk about your complete ignorant view of the bible, start a thread. I will be happy explain things too you, until then, maybe stay on topic and quit blasting people's views. This has nothing to do with my religion, while it effects my opnion, it is not the sole factor. The difference is the difference- marriage is a union between like and unlike, as in nature, and history. Why are we changing this?
Maybe that's the real question. Q. What is the reason to change the definition of marriage?
A.____________idk. Best I can come up with is because some people want to. If that's the case. I have several things I want changed, I'll start a list.
To love is to follow God's will, not the human conceptualization of love, I realize this. If you love me, do my will. We are supposed to be a good influence to sinners, and try to help them see what we consider an error in living. We are not told to be hostile, but be wise as serpents, but gentle as doves. If we treat gay/lesbian as synonymous with sinner, then we have a clear path on how we should treat the community. Be cool to em, but you don't have to like it. It's God's job to judge them.
This is a pretty good statement mages, I wanted to expand on it.
Sany of you know OnlyinDreams here on the pfs from a while back, he is my best friend and we talk about this all 5lthe time. A few of the things that I keep telling him are:
Most of the people in the western world who claim they are christians are not actually living praticing christians, it's more of a social thing then a belief thing - i.e. westburough Baptist church- they are not chriatians, tho the claim to be.
It is never the job of a Christian to specific point out sin to society. It is, as mages said our job to show love ( tho I fail more then I succeed, cuz people...)
So when do I (a christian) talk about a specific sin? Imo, there are like 3 ish only times I bring this up is 1. in a fourm of open discussion like this, and then very carefully, not to judge, but to share my beief in love 2. In personal conversation with someone who brings it up. 3. In a teaching opportunity with other believers, when it comes up biblically, or.something like that.
So that's my religious discourse, tho as I said in my last post, I don't think this issue is primarily a religious one, and to make it one i's the wrong Avenue.
I'm sorry if me stating my opinion is hateful to you? You say you believe in the bible, I just said I don't and fail to see why people do and stated reasons why I feel this way. That's how debates happen, I don't recall saying anything specifically spiteful to you. Also, I know a good bit about the bible, I've been going back and forth on this for over a decade, starting as a devout christian.
How do you call me ignorant on the bible when I quote things from the bible, and even tell you where to look for said things, that doesn't show ignorance to me, I think you are just hating because my views differ from yours.
And because Christianity was bought up and a lot of the following things were responding to such, and the bible being the chief book of Christianity, getting into a talk where Christianity is a big part makes it bible heavy in the same way a conversation about cheese is cheese heavy(fyi, if this is why you said I am being hateful, js, there was no hate meant, just an observation)
You stated your thoughts about gay marriage and used the bible to support it, I just stated my opposite opinion, you are the one jumping towards being somewhat hateful
it is getting bible heavy as there is separation between religion and state. Laws should be made on the basics of whats good for the country and the people not what some book says. So why is religion in this at all
we should treat all people fairly and equally and this is why gay marriage should be legal.
Well, I may have been a little harsh, I get crankey first thing in the morning. your post did seem a bit antognistic, and I responded a bit in kind, my bad.
I'm not saying your dumb, but from your post it seems like you may have some knowledge about the bible, but misunderstood things.
Also to reiterate - the issue of gay marriage is not a religious issue. It's an issue if what marriage is, and why it needs to be changed.
So media freak, I've been thinking about this for a whole, and it seems to me that the lbgt's marriage equality movments main argument is summed up in your statement
we should treat all people fairly and equally and this is why gay marriage should be legal.
I do agree we should treat all people fairly, 100%. I'm still have not gotten an answer on how treating people equally fits. People are different. We have different strengtha and weaknesses, and we should be treated differently, to a point, accordingly. So then, the question that naturally progresses is Q. what point dose the treatmeat of someone differently ending on the human rights
A. Any discrimination based on race, color, creed, ect... we have added in the last 10 years sexual orientation.
So let's define discrimination- merriam-webster- : the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
The key issue then comes back to weather it is fair or not, for marriage to continue to be defined as between a man and woman, or between two people.
A lot of consrvitives miss state the issue by saying things like, we'll I can just marry my dog then!
That is rediclious. But the point they are trying to make should be addressed. If your saying that there should be definitions among protected classes, why then can I not get the united negro college fund scholarship I am white fyi)
So u say then your not black you shouldn't get it. Well, I could then use your same argument that I am being unfairly treated because I am not whatever specific race, color, creed, that is being protected/given some special treatment.
It is a slippery slope at, and if you want to be consistent with that view, we then have to get rid of any special designation.
I mean I can see your point, and I totally understand, the part about the belief in dragons and giants area, can be seen in a pretty, uh, demeaning way, but that wasn't even to knock the religion itself, just the part where I was talking about being literal with it, which actually did just come out of left field, so I will apologize on that.
And to get on track with the other part of the conversation. Marriage actually has changed a bunch over time still, I mean, man and woman has been there forever obviously as man and woman need to be together for anything to continue, but like I mentioned in the other post, biblical marriages have had a few different kinds that were all acceptable. In parts of the world and even in America polygamy is still a thing. All things change with society, change drives society, eventually all things will change at some point. And also, it is inevitably a religious issue with marriage, like there is no getting out of that, on the scale of everything I mean, not just this thread, but in the whole of America.
Comments
Central to our program is the consideration of how gender interacts with race, class, ethnicity, age, ability, and sexuality. Students will explore the practices and processes that impact on women’s and men’s lives in historical, socio-economic, cultural and political contexts.
The biggest issue: same sex marriage is re defining the definition of a marriage. That is a fact. For thousands of years marriage has been an istitution that added a man and woman together to crate a stable until for raising children.
Q: So, as a society are we ok with redifining marriage.
In California ( the most liberal state in the us) they were not able to democraticly pass same sex marriage (prop 8 a few years ago)
A: the majority of people in the us still belive the definition of marriage is still 1 man one woman.
Conclusion-. Imo- the biggest issue with the ruling is the supreme court bypassed the democratic process, and the will of the majority.
Q: Is same sex marriage a civil rights issue? Why/why not
Why- because they are people, and we are denying them a fundamental right as human beings
Why not- marriage is not a fundimental right for any person, it is a specific union of a man an woman, as historically understood, and there is no compelling reason to change that.
A: I don't know.
Those of you who know me well know I have a very religious backround, and a pretty devout faith.
One of the problems ( on both sides of this issue) is there is so much hate.
1. People who claim to be "Christians" and are hateful to anyone have some serious questions they should ask themselves. The issue is, can u as a (-----insert religion---) legislate morality? Is it your job to make the people who do not conform to your belief live by your standard of pratice? I don't think it is.
2. You as someone who supports same sex marriage, - is it your job to change this minds of these back water christians, by any means possible, even if it means closing theor busniess, or filing lawsuits agonist a church because they "hate" your lifestyle?
I don't think so- just go on and do what your going to do, why involve everyone else?
In conclusion - as a bible following Christian ( who still messes.up all the time) I song think you should be a hibitual thief. It would grate agonist the core of your being.
In a similar manner, I belive you can insert any sin described in the bible for theif- homosexuality is no different,and shouldn't be treated as some separate worse thing.
I also believe it is my progitive to not a prove of any of these sins in privite, as long as it doesn't manifest it's self as hate.
I don't think it makes any difference in the us weather or not same sex marriage is legal. We have long since passed that threshold of morality where that should be an issue, I still would not privately vote for it, but that is my progitive in the democratic process.
So really, in light if all this, the real victims here are the gay rights movment and democracy . The GRM lost the chance to democraticly win over the population, and democracy has twice in two days overstepped it's constational boundaries.
Ad a side note- it is intresting that the same week as this huge news, the Pentagon released a finance report showing like an 8 trillion dollar discrepancy.
( I haven't fact checked this so meh)
if it is true, is there anyone who really thinks that was a coincidence?
Tl:Dr
The us government is F'd.
Hate is wrong- do what you want and leave other people alone.
Be back in a a few months
Essentially, he's attempting to abolish our rights & freedoms piece by piece while painting himself as a superhero. It could even, in some fucked up way, be forgivable if he had done something productive for our country. Our debt has shot through the fucking roof under his regime, with seemingly no plan to fix it.
I wonder about the definition of marriage as a social institution.
Who defines this "social institution"..and does the definition changes over time?
With no informed consent, there is no democracy, so christians have two options here:
1. Change USA into a Christian State.
2. Provide scientific studies that back up their claims.
This is incorrect. The beauty, and what I believe will be the ultimate demise of the democratic process is that I don't have to be informed, I don't have to vote with the masses, or with science, or with religion, I can simply vote how I fell I want to. It is the will of the people, not the will of the informed people.
As to point #2 - I don't need to back up any scientific studies to show that marrange ha's historically been a union between a man and woman, so I guess maybe I am misunderstanding the point u make here?
Also- what would you say I as a Christian voter, who votes for the definition of marriage to stay as the union of a man and woman, and not change to the union of any two people, am uninformed on (I am not saying that everyone who shares my view is informed, many of them are not, and some of them are actual biggots, but that's another spectrum of the argument) Maybe social union? Idk if my terminology was the best there.
I would say society has defined it in various was, but the primary understandING of marriage devolved long before any real government, or established definition of marriage, out of a desire to see your offspring thrive. Idk. It's late, and I'll think more on this and get back to u.
Well, marriage was defined the way it is for a reason, and the fact marriage was unchanged over the years, simply means there was no reason to change. Apparently, now there is.
And whats the reason not to change, to make opposition to the reason to change? (Tsc, sometimes repeating words are annoying to read....lots of reasons and change)
I'm not sure why you say this is getting bible heave. All that I have said is that I have a faith that shapes my view, certainly this is acceptable. I for one, have been extremely careful not to be hatefull, or negative, which I can't say the same for you.
You want to talk about your complete ignorant view of the bible, start a thread. I will be happy explain things too you, until then, maybe stay on topic and quit blasting people's views. This has nothing to do with my religion, while it effects my opnion, it is not the sole factor. The difference is the difference- marriage is a union between like and unlike, as in nature, and history. Why are we changing this?
Maybe that's the real question.
Q. What is the reason to change the definition of marriage?
A.____________idk. Best I can come up with is because some people want to. If that's the case. I have several things I want changed, I'll start a list.
Sany of you know OnlyinDreams here on the pfs from a while back, he is my best friend and we talk about this all 5lthe time. A few of the things that I keep telling him are:
Most of the people in the western world who claim they are christians are not actually living praticing christians, it's more of a social thing then a belief thing - i.e. westburough Baptist church- they are not chriatians, tho the claim to be.
It is never the job of a Christian to specific point out sin to society. It is, as mages said our job to show love ( tho I fail more then I succeed, cuz people...)
So when do I (a christian) talk about a specific sin?
Imo, there are like 3 ish only times I bring this up is
1. in a fourm of open discussion like this, and then very carefully, not to judge, but to share my beief in love
2. In personal conversation with someone who brings it up.
3. In a teaching opportunity with other believers, when it comes up biblically, or.something like that.
So that's my religious discourse, tho as I said in my last post, I don't think this issue is primarily a religious one, and to make it one i's the wrong Avenue.
How do you call me ignorant on the bible when I quote things from the bible, and even tell you where to look for said things, that doesn't show ignorance to me, I think you are just hating because my views differ from yours.
And because Christianity was bought up and a lot of the following things were responding to such, and the bible being the chief book of Christianity, getting into a talk where Christianity is a big part makes it bible heavy in the same way a conversation about cheese is cheese heavy(fyi, if this is why you said I am being hateful, js, there was no hate meant, just an observation)
You stated your thoughts about gay marriage and used the bible to support it, I just stated my opposite opinion, you are the one jumping towards being somewhat hateful
we should treat all people fairly and equally and this is why gay marriage should be legal.
I'm not saying your dumb, but from your post it seems like you may have some knowledge about the bible, but misunderstood things.
Also to reiterate - the issue of gay marriage is not a religious issue. It's an issue if what marriage is, and why it needs to be changed.
needed to be changed and was changed to be fair to all people. (weather or not is yet is debatable)
Q. what point dose the treatmeat of someone differently ending on the human rights
A. Any discrimination based on race, color, creed, ect...
we have added in the last 10 years sexual orientation.
So let's define discrimination-
merriam-webster- : the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
The key issue then comes back to weather it is fair or not, for marriage to continue to be defined as between a man and woman, or between two people.
A lot of consrvitives miss state the issue by saying things like, we'll I can just marry my dog then!
That is rediclious. But the point they are trying to make should be addressed. If your saying that there should be definitions among protected classes, why then can I not get the united negro college fund scholarship I am white fyi)
So u say then your not black you shouldn't get it. Well, I could then use your same argument that I am being unfairly treated because I am not whatever specific race, color, creed, that is being protected/given some special treatment.
It is a slippery slope at, and if you want to be consistent with that view, we then have to get rid of any special designation.
And to get on track with the other part of the conversation. Marriage actually has changed a bunch over time still, I mean, man and woman has been there forever obviously as man and woman need to be together for anything to continue, but like I mentioned in the other post, biblical marriages have had a few different kinds that were all acceptable. In parts of the world and even in America polygamy is still a thing. All things change with society, change drives society, eventually all things will change at some point. And also, it is inevitably a religious issue with marriage, like there is no getting out of that, on the scale of everything I mean, not just this thread, but in the whole of America.