And, as I see it, the gay marriage issue isn't really a religious issue at all but more one of traditionalism vs. progressivism. The way I see it is that many people, regardless of their religious views, are very afraid of change
That too.
But I think it's also because gay people getting married basically equals them openly declaring, "I'm committing myself to this person, this same-sex person, for life. My homosexuality is not 'just a phase' or something I could overcome with enough therapy or Bible study; I'll be living with a same-sex spouse for life. This is it." And that is, of course, scary for all those who would like to keep telling themselves that their son's or daughter's homosexuality is "just a phase
( ... )
Ooooh, let's see how far I get before I run into the word limit... ;)
And that is, of course, scary for all those who would like to keep telling themselves that their son's or daughter's homosexuality is "just a phase".
But, then again, with the prevalence and ease of procuring a divorce -- at least in American society -- the original intention and meaning of marriage has largely become moot. One of the common objections that I see to gay marriage is that it "demeans marriage". I hate to tell folks who use this argument this, but if that is truly the issue that they're worried about, then they should be focusing their efforts on all these heterosexual people who get divorced and who commit adultery, not on gay people who want their unions to be recognized as legitimate marriages... Seems to me that the true fear is, as I said, a fear of changing long-standing tradition rather than any real fear of demeaning the institution of marriage
( ... )
One of the common objections that I see to gay marriage is that it "demeans marriage". I hate to tell folks who use this argument this, but if that is truly the issue that they're worried about, then they should be focusing their efforts on all these heterosexual people who get divorced and who commit adultery, not on gay people who want their unions to be recognized as legitimate marriages...
I completely agree.
throughout all of history, long before Christians came into the picture, there has never been a society that allowed homosexual marriage
Actually, IIRC, there were cultures that had a tradition of shamans dressing and acting as the opposite gender, and marrying a person of the same sex (i.e. same as their birth sex). But, like I said, that was for people who lived as a gender different from their birth sex, so those marriages were still "hetero", in a way - more a matter of sanctioned transsexuality than of sanctioned homosexuality.
"Fundamentalist" Buddhists, for one, tend to be that way. I was a fundamentalist
( ... )
So yes, it's "not just the Christian fundies". I have no gripe with Christianity (quite to the contrary); I do have a gripe with fundamentalism of any flavour, whether it's Christian fundamentalism, Muslim fundamentalism, Hare Krishna fundamentalism, or what have you. My opinion towards that can be summed up with a quote from the webcomic Unicorn Jelly:
"NO book, however sacred, can remain true forever! Things... change
( ... )
As for the pharmacist who didn't want to sell birth control...ravenclaw_deviMarch 24 2005, 17:12:16 UTC
Yes, the guy has a right to his own conscience and his own decisions, just like everyone else. However, my opinion is that he should've thought about the issue before he decided to become a pharmacist. It's not like it isn't common knowledge that pharmacies sell birth control stuff, among other things. (Unless he is an old man who got into that line of business before the pill was invented, but even in those days, there were condoms and what not.)
Imagine I belonged to a religion that says it's a sin to sell alcohol. Now, it's common knowledge that supermarkets (for instance) sell alcohol. Would it be right of me to get a job at a supermarket nevertheless and then demand that they take the booze off the shelves? Or that they take it off the shelves during my work hours? What if every time a customer came to the checkout with a bottle of liquor, I'd say, "Sorry, it's against my conscience to ring up your purchase. Please line up at the other checkout, thank you."? I'd get fired if I did that, and rightfully soNow, if he's self-
( ... )
Re: As for the pharmacist who didn't want to sell birth control...calibrataMarch 24 2005, 20:37:26 UTC
I'd get fired if I did that, and rightfully so.
Exactly my thought, Devi. It's not a legal decision, it's not his personal right, it's a corporate decision, unless, again, he's self-employed. Self-employed folks can be as odd as they want, but they're also generally not the only shop in town, at least if you have a car. (Hello, Wal-Mart!)
Not that I'm saying corporations don't make some bizarre policies. *rolls eyes* And I don't know the actual story, but it has become sort of an example in absence of context by now.
Or maybe it's because some/many of the issues you discussed don't affect you personally.
Chuckle. Even I don't feel as strongly about some issues now that I don't live in the South.
Also, whoa, Devi, for some reason I thought you were younger than me! Sigh, the kidu has gotten herself confused again.
As to the actual entry... The image of TC singing "Live to Tell", off-key, is nothing short of hysterical. Tempts me to set up a karaoke bar with lots of energon.
Re: As for the pharmacist who didn't want to sell birth control...nightwind69March 26 2005, 12:48:13 UTC
And I don't know the actual story, but it has become sort of an example in absence of context by now.
'Tis true, yes. Which is why I was careful to point out that I was making assumptions and basing my argument on that assumption.
As to the actual entry... The image of TC singing "Live to Tell", off-key, is nothing short of hysterical. Tempts me to set up a karaoke bar with lots of energon.
For the sake of everyone's eardrums, if not their sanity...Please don't. ;)
On to lighter subjects...ravenclaw_deviMarch 24 2005, 17:37:21 UTC
The one thing that sticks out in my mind is Thundercracker singing Madonna's "Live to Tell", which is really funny because that is his theme song in the story.
Iiiinteresting... You know, if you'd ask me which Decepticons' theme song "Live to Tell" would be, I'd probably go, "I dunno... Starscream's?" I wouldn't have thought of TC right away. So I'm intrigued, and would really like to find out why and how it is a TC song in the Redemptionverse.
And yes, imagining him singing it is funny. *lol* Actually, any Seeker singing is kinda a scary thought, hehe.
Re: On to lighter subjects...nightwind69March 26 2005, 12:40:51 UTC
So I'm intrigued, and would really like to find out why and how it is a TC song in the Redemptionverse.
It would be a long story to tell, I'm afraid. :) Basically, it involves TC having moments of clarity in which he sees certain events happening around him and their effects on the Decepticon Cause(TM) in a very different light. Thus the "secret" of which the song speaks. So, in my mind, the song is very much "him". Not Starscream, no. He has too many songs already. :)
And yes, singing Seekers are very, very scary things. But funny, too. It was very amusing dream, indeed. :)
Re: On to lighter subjects...ravenclaw_deviMarch 26 2005, 22:28:35 UTC
Basically, it involves TC having moments of clarity in which he sees certain events happening around him and their effects on the Decepticon Cause(TM) in a very different light. Thus the "secret" of which the song speaks.
Ah. I'll wait for the story actually being written, then, hm? :)
Not Starscream, no. He has too many songs already. :)
Oh, tell me about it! It's interesting how one's headspace cast adopts a soundtrack, isn't it?
Speaking of which, I realized recently that Steadfast's voice sounds like Patti Smith's. Like Patti's speaking voice, that is - my jetgirl doesn't sing, and that's probably a good thing. *chuckles*
***And, as I see it, the gay marriage issue isn't really a religious issue at all but more one of traditionalism vs. progressivism.***
Be that as it may, that's not how the *church* sees it.
I am stunned that you can say that there's no evidence of 'anyone being forced to follow any one specific religious doctrine'. In my country and yours, things that are acknowledged as 'common-sense' are actually deep-rooted manifestations of monothestic doctrine.
And common-sense, as we know, is what tells you the world is flat.
In my country and yours, things that are acknowledged as 'common-sense' are actually deep-rooted manifestations of monothestic doctrine.
Interesting; I've always considered "common-sense" to be the bluntly obvious concepts anyone with at least 1 eye and a sense of touch could learn in their first few years of life. ie, you can't pass through brick walls, objects that move fast hurt if they hit you and stuff that cuts trees in half will cut you.
Be that as it may, that's not how the *church* sees it.
For the purposes of this discussion, what the "church" sees A) is irrelevant because we were (or at least I was) talking about the government infringing upon people's rights and B) depends upon what "church" you are talking about.
My claim, as I said to Devi, is that the gay marriage issue isn't simply one centered upon morality or religious beliefs but one of trying to overthrow 5,000+ years of tradition, which is a much bigger thing. To call the whole fuss just an attempt by Christians to impose their moral beliefs on other people is, quite simply, a false accusation, if only because there are people of no religious beliefs at all who oppose gay marriage just as vehemently as some Christians.
I am stunned that you can say that there's no evidence of 'anyone being forced to follow any one specific religious doctrine'. In my country and yours, things that are acknowledged as 'common-sense' are actually deep-rooted manifestations of monothestic doctrine.Actually, most of the "
( ... )
That isn't the same as sharing all of one's music collection over Kazaa or other file sharing networks, which I'm assuming is what you're getting at.
First, I was using the Fair Use Act as an example to back up my statement that our rights are not *just* in the Bill of Rights. ;)
I don't share music. After all, if the entire CD is $0.99 why bother downloading a crappy 96 kbps MP3 ? With the actual CD I have much better quality and all of the songs on the CD (the usual sample rate is 96 kbps for a downloaded MP3; ripped at home I can best 256 kbps
( ... )
First, I was using the Fair Use Act as an example to back up my statement that our rights are not *just* in the Bill of Rights. ;)You're right. I was assuming that you were going to go off on an "I'll share my music if I want to!" tirade. I assumed incorrectly. In any case, I think there needs to be a balance with Fair Use. Yes, it sucks that measures have to be taken to prevent people from pirating, and I'm thinking that there has to be an equitable solution somewhere. We just haven't arrived at it yet. For the record, though, my brand-new Hewlett-Packard CAD station at work came with WindowsXP (I know; yuck ;) ) and EZ Media Creator for the DVD burner. It plays all the CDs I've put into it just fine and I've backed up software CDs on it without a problem, including the brand-new $4,000.00 CAD software. This is the first I've heard (although, as I said, I tend to be fairly out of touch. :)) of the kind of things you're describing (i.e. the CDs that won't play in a computer CD drive) That might be something to get upset about, yes. I
( ... )
Here's a one line summary: "Love the sinner, hate the sin, not hate the sinner because of the sin."
Alas, it is far more complicated that that, I'm afraid.... :\
Enforcing a Catholic view of marriage instead of enforcing the right to be treated equal doesn't sound like being forced to follow Christian beliefs?
As I've said to others, it's not the Christian view of marriage, per se, that is being "enforced" because not all people opposed to gay marriage are Christian. Rather, it is the traditional view of marriage -- the view, I reiterate, that was traditional even before Christianity came into being -- that is being, for now, upheld. And that's what I've been saying here: That the issue is not just one of religious/moral beliefs but of changing tradition and of people's general aversion to doing so. Which, as I've said, is why the issue is such a tough one. It crosses the boundaries so that it is not just one group who is opposed to or who supports it, but many groups. It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out...if it ever
( ... )
Comments 39
That too.
But I think it's also because gay people getting married basically equals them openly declaring, "I'm committing myself to this person, this same-sex person, for life. My homosexuality is not 'just a phase' or something I could overcome with enough therapy or Bible study; I'll be living with a same-sex spouse for life. This is it." And that is, of course, scary for all those who would like to keep telling themselves that their son's or daughter's homosexuality is "just a phase ( ... )
Reply
And that is, of course, scary for all those who would like to keep telling themselves that their son's or daughter's homosexuality is "just a phase".
But, then again, with the prevalence and ease of procuring a divorce -- at least in American society -- the original intention and meaning of marriage has largely become moot. One of the common objections that I see to gay marriage is that it "demeans marriage". I hate to tell folks who use this argument this, but if that is truly the issue that they're worried about, then they should be focusing their efforts on all these heterosexual people who get divorced and who commit adultery, not on gay people who want their unions to be recognized as legitimate marriages... Seems to me that the true fear is, as I said, a fear of changing long-standing tradition rather than any real fear of demeaning the institution of marriage ( ... )
Reply
I completely agree.
throughout all of history, long before Christians came into the picture, there has never been a society that allowed homosexual marriage
Actually, IIRC, there were cultures that had a tradition of shamans dressing and acting as the opposite gender, and marrying a person of the same sex (i.e. same as their birth sex). But, like I said, that was for people who lived as a gender different from their birth sex, so those marriages were still "hetero", in a way - more a matter of sanctioned transsexuality than of sanctioned homosexuality.
"Fundamentalist" Buddhists, for one, tend to be that way. I was a fundamentalist ( ... )
Reply
"NO book, however sacred, can remain true forever! Things... change ( ... )
Reply
Imagine I belonged to a religion that says it's a sin to sell alcohol. Now, it's common knowledge that supermarkets (for instance) sell alcohol. Would it be right of me to get a job at a supermarket nevertheless and then demand that they take the booze off the shelves? Or that they take it off the shelves during my work hours? What if every time a customer came to the checkout with a bottle of liquor, I'd say, "Sorry, it's against my conscience to ring up your purchase. Please line up at the other checkout, thank you."? I'd get fired if I did that, and rightfully soNow, if he's self- ( ... )
Reply
Exactly my thought, Devi. It's not a legal decision, it's not his personal right, it's a corporate decision, unless, again, he's self-employed. Self-employed folks can be as odd as they want, but they're also generally not the only shop in town, at least if you have a car. (Hello, Wal-Mart!)
Not that I'm saying corporations don't make some bizarre policies. *rolls eyes* And I don't know the actual story, but it has become sort of an example in absence of context by now.
Or maybe it's because some/many of the issues you discussed don't affect you personally.
Chuckle. Even I don't feel as strongly about some issues now that I don't live in the South.
Also, whoa, Devi, for some reason I thought you were younger than me! Sigh, the kidu has gotten herself confused again.
As to the actual entry... The image of TC singing "Live to Tell", off-key, is nothing short of hysterical. Tempts me to set up a karaoke bar with lots of energon.
Reply
I'll take it as a compliment. ;) I'm thirty, actually.
Reply
'Tis true, yes. Which is why I was careful to point out that I was making assumptions and basing my argument on that assumption.
As to the actual entry... The image of TC singing "Live to Tell", off-key, is nothing short of hysterical. Tempts me to set up a karaoke bar with lots of energon.
For the sake of everyone's eardrums, if not their sanity...Please don't. ;)
Reply
Iiiinteresting... You know, if you'd ask me which Decepticons' theme song "Live to Tell" would be, I'd probably go, "I dunno... Starscream's?" I wouldn't have thought of TC right away. So I'm intrigued, and would really like to find out why and how it is a TC song in the Redemptionverse.
And yes, imagining him singing it is funny. *lol* Actually, any Seeker singing is kinda a scary thought, hehe.
Reply
It would be a long story to tell, I'm afraid. :) Basically, it involves TC having moments of clarity in which he sees certain events happening around him and their effects on the Decepticon Cause(TM) in a very different light. Thus the "secret" of which the song speaks. So, in my mind, the song is very much "him". Not Starscream, no. He has too many songs already. :)
And yes, singing Seekers are very, very scary things. But funny, too. It was very amusing dream, indeed. :)
Reply
Ah. I'll wait for the story actually being written, then, hm? :)
Not Starscream, no. He has too many songs already. :)
Oh, tell me about it! It's interesting how one's headspace cast adopts a soundtrack, isn't it?
Speaking of which, I realized recently that Steadfast's voice sounds like Patti Smith's. Like Patti's speaking voice, that is - my jetgirl doesn't sing, and that's probably a good thing. *chuckles*
Reply
Be that as it may, that's not how the *church* sees it.
I am stunned that you can say that there's no evidence of 'anyone being forced to follow any one specific religious doctrine'. In my country and yours, things that are acknowledged as 'common-sense' are actually deep-rooted manifestations of monothestic doctrine.
And common-sense, as we know, is what tells you the world is flat.
Reply
Interesting; I've always considered "common-sense" to be the bluntly obvious concepts anyone with at least 1 eye and a sense of touch could learn in their first few years of life. ie, you can't pass through brick walls, objects that move fast hurt if they hit you and stuff that cuts trees in half will cut you.
But common sense isn't...
Reply
Reply
For the purposes of this discussion, what the "church" sees A) is irrelevant because we were (or at least I was) talking about the government infringing upon people's rights and B) depends upon what "church" you are talking about.
My claim, as I said to Devi, is that the gay marriage issue isn't simply one centered upon morality or religious beliefs but one of trying to overthrow 5,000+ years of tradition, which is a much bigger thing. To call the whole fuss just an attempt by Christians to impose their moral beliefs on other people is, quite simply, a false accusation, if only because there are people of no religious beliefs at all who oppose gay marriage just as vehemently as some Christians.
I am stunned that you can say that there's no evidence of 'anyone being forced to follow any one specific religious doctrine'. In my country and yours, things that are acknowledged as 'common-sense' are actually deep-rooted manifestations of monothestic doctrine.Actually, most of the " ( ... )
Reply
First, I was using the Fair Use Act as an example to back up my statement that our rights are not *just* in the Bill of Rights. ;)
I don't share music. After all, if the entire CD is $0.99 why bother downloading a crappy 96 kbps MP3 ? With the actual CD I have much better quality and all of the songs on the CD (the usual sample rate is 96 kbps for a downloaded MP3; ripped at home I can best 256 kbps ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Alas, it is far more complicated that that, I'm afraid.... :\
Enforcing a Catholic view of marriage instead of enforcing the right to be treated equal doesn't sound like being forced to follow Christian beliefs?
As I've said to others, it's not the Christian view of marriage, per se, that is being "enforced" because not all people opposed to gay marriage are Christian. Rather, it is the traditional view of marriage -- the view, I reiterate, that was traditional even before Christianity came into being -- that is being, for now, upheld. And that's what I've been saying here: That the issue is not just one of religious/moral beliefs but of changing tradition and of people's general aversion to doing so. Which, as I've said, is why the issue is such a tough one. It crosses the boundaries so that it is not just one group who is opposed to or who supports it, but many groups. It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out...if it ever ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment