7 States And Counting

[lilithu]

If we're not going to pretend that this has nothing to do with my religion, then we're not going to pretend that it has nothing to do with your religion (whose agenda is almost purely political), either.

Excuse me??! Our political views are based on our spiritual views, not the other way around, just as your political views are based on your spiritual views. We are religious people who seek to live out our values in this world. Our belief in the inherent worth of every individual and the desire to create a community where every person has the opportunity to reach their full potential as humans, as agents of the divine.

If you want respect, you've got to give it too.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

As someone who is actually affected by not being able to legally marry the person they love - and in fact is stuck in a different country on the other side of the world because, unlike straight people who can get their mail-order brides into the US no questions asked, my loving partner is unable to sponsor me for immigration - yes, it is.

If you don't think I've been personally affected by it, you basically haven't read anything I've said on this thread. No, It Isn't.

 

[Sunstone]

I would think the government had as much of a vested interest in promoting long lasting stable relationships for straights as for gays. I mean, the whole reason the government is involved in marriage in the first place is because it has an interest in promoting long lasting stable relationships for the social welfare. So, wouldn't it have just as much of an interest in promoting such relationships among gays as among straights? And if so, aren't these amendments rather counter productive to the public good?

 

[Green Gaia]

Can you name one that's prominent enough to be listed on the Internet? I'd love to look him or her up, see what they have to say on the issue...all I've EVER heard from UUs is liberalism preached.

:biglaugh: Is that supposed to be an attack on UU? We ARE proudly religious liberals, and we don't preach.

I'm a nobody, I don't know any prominent people. I just know the people in my congregation.

 

[lilithu]

Can you name one that's prominent enough to be listed on the Internet? I'd love to look him or her up, see what they have to say on the issue...all I've EVER heard from UUs is liberalism preached.

We are religious liberals without a doubt, ala the Enlightenment. But we're not all political liberals. What is your point??!

 

[Green Gaia]

It isn't...straight people shouldn't be allowed to abuse marriage like that.

BUT THEY ARE! Where's the constitutional amendments banning them?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

:biglaugh: Is that supposed to be an attack on UU? We ARE proudly religious liberals

Pretty sure my point that you guys are a one-sided politically liberal religion was just established...

, and we don't preach.

Coulda fooled me.

I'm a nobody, I don't know any prominent people. I just know the people in my congregation.

You don't go on the Internet and see what other UUs have to say and believe?...oh, wait, that's what you do on RF Seriously, I'm looking and I can't find a single UU who supports a gay marriage ban. Every one of them supports gay marriage....in fact, the UUA website unabashedly declares,

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the delegates of the 1992 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association are outraged at the hate campaigns going on in these states and at the possibility of legalization of discrimination based on sexual orientation if these constitutional amendments and ordinances pass;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1992 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association strongly urges all Unitarian Universalist Congregations to inform their members of the ballot initiatives in Colorado, Oregon, and other jurisdictions this November; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the 1992 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association urges all Unitarian Universalists to support EPOColorado and the Campaign for a Hate-Free Oregon with financial contributions and by writing letters to friends and relatives living in those states, encourAgriculture them to vote against the amendments. "

But of course you're "not told what to think"...

 

[Bastet]

If you don't think I've been personally affected by it, you basically haven't read anything I've said on this thread. No, It Isn't.

I've read everything that you've said on this thread. The fact that I don't agree with any of it is irrelevant.

Yes, it is. Perhaps if you were legally being prevented from marrying the person you love, you might have something to argue about. Since nowhere in this thread have you stated that, you have no call on the matter.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

BUT THEY ARE! Where's the constitutional amendments banning them?

I'll help you write one up, how's that? Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I've read everything that you've said on this thread. The fact that I don't agree with any of it is irrelevant.

Yes, it is. Perhaps if you were legally being prevented from marrying the person you love, you might have something to argue about. Since nowhere in this thread have you stated that, you have no call on the matter.

A, I have stated as much, go back and check it out; B, I am allowed to have an opinion on something even when it doesn't affect me directly.

 

[Bastet]

I would think the government had as much of a vested interest in promoting long lasting stable relationships for straights as for gays. I mean, the whole reason the government is involved in marriage in the first place is because it has an interest in promoting long lasting stable relationships for the social welfare. So, wouldn't it have just as much of an interest in promoting such relationships among gays as among straights? And if so, aren't these amendments rather counter productive to the public good?

In a word, yes.

 

[Bastet]

A, I have stated as much, go back and check it out; B, I am allowed to have an opinion on something even when it doesn't affect me directly.

A, please give me the post numbers and highlight the specific text. Your posts consist of nothing much more than dodging direct questions, giving vague answers and talking crap; B, of course you are allowed to have an opinion on something even when it doesn't affect you directly - that doesn't mean you are right.

 

[Green Gaia]

Pretty sure my point that you guys are a one-sided politically liberal religion was just established...

Religiousl liberal religion, you betcha! Politics is left up to the individual.

Coulda fooled me.

Ever been to a UU church? There is no fire and brimstone, believe me or you'll go to hell sermon.

Seriously, I'm looking and I can't find a single UU who supports a gay marriage ban. Every one of them supports gay marriage.

So? We all have freedom of conscience and freedom of belied, no one tells what to believe or think. So most UUs have come to the same conclusion that same gender couples deserve to be treated fairly and equally under the law. There is a strong sense of social justice among UUs.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'll help you write one up, how's that? Two wrongs don't make a right.

So you're going to ban heterosexual marriage now too to keep the gays from marrying?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

A, please give me the post numbers and highlight the specific text. Your posts consist of nothing much more than dodging direct questions, giving vague answers and talking crap

Ahh, yes, I disagree with you, so when I offer my views I'm just "talking crap"...I love the tolerance from UUs...

B, of course you are allowed to have an opinion on something even when it doesn't affect you directly - that doesn't mean you are right.

Nor does it mean I'm wrong just because you don't like my views.

 

[lilithu]

B, I am allowed to have an opinion on something even when it doesn't affect me directly.

Opinion, yes. But why should you have the right to have an influence on things that don't affect you directly?

What makes you think you have the right to legislate who someone else can and cannot love and be with?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

So you're going to ban heterosexual marriage now too to keep the gays from marrying?

I thought we were talking very specifically about the abuse of heterosexual marriage, such as going to Vegas and getting married to a stranger, etc, not all hetersexual marriages period. I'll gladly ban those abuses.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Opinion, yes. But why should you have the right to have an influence on things that don't affect you directly?

Pretty sure that third parties do that in disputes all the time..it's not a foreign concept

 

[Sunstone]

In ten years, those amendments will not have done a single thing to strengthen traditional marriages. They will have no more "upheld traditional marriage" than banning popcorn will uphold traditional corn on the cob.

 

[Bastet]

Ahh, yes, I disagree with you, so when I offer my views I'm just "talking crap"...I love the tolerance from UUs...

I call it like I see it. And don't blame the UUs for my lack of manners. I've never claimed to be one, or to be any specific religion, for that matter.

Nor does it mean I'm wrong just because you don't like my views.

I'm not going to argue about this with you. It's obviously pointless. And stop using my purple, dammit! :149: