Gah!

[seiberwing]

The gay marriage ban in Tennessee passed by 81%. Meaning 81% of the state's voting population are against gay couples having the same rights given to straight couples, a rationale that basically boils down to "the Bible said so, now let's force it on everyone else". Now I remember why I left that damn state and came to Hippytown, NC

Comments

[goldcelestial]

it could also mean that 81% of Tn's voters don't understand the wording of the ballots.
considering a lot of our school systems, I'd bet on that more than the bible theory

[seiberwing]

Everyone in Tennesee understands the words "marriage is between a man and a woman". If nothing else.

[pivot89]

81%? *blink* That... is weird. (Especially since I've always had the impression that it's not 'the Bible said so' so much as 'I heard the Bible said so and have never really questioned it'. It's there, but nobody seems to mention the context. Or the fact that it's a translation anyway.)

Still, from what I've heard today, the administration's a bit shaken up. (I like seeing politicians in a state of healthy nervousness.)

[seiberwing]

It's a line in the old testament and a few lines in Romans that could just as well translate as "the Romans need to stop screwing the male prostitutes". The rest is homophobia.

[pivot89]

Yeah, it's just that it's explained and/or discussed so seldom, I get the impression that the speakers haven't actually read it - well, thought about it - themselves. (Like many of us students, riffling through books for a quote that looks like it fits our essay argument.)

[seiberwing]

They just thump the Bible and don't back it up.

[newagelink]

> The gay marriage ban in Tennessee passed by 81%.

Hell yeah! Now we just have to ban "marriage" from our legal system, period. You never did tell me what you thought of my actual solution.

> Meaning 81% of the state's voting population are against gay couples having the same rights given to straight couples,

Um, no. I voted Yes to ban it, because I believe the definition of "marriage" is the union between a man, and a woman. As you've seen in my journal entry, that has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's rights. Marriage belongs in a social/cultural function, not in a legal system.

> a rationale that basically boils down to "the Bible said so, now let's force it on everyone else".

Good job, blame somebody. That helps a lot, doesn't it? Doesn't it make you feel so much better?

Maybe 1) people don't want to change the definition, or 2) simply don't like gays (an opinion to which they're perfectly entitled.)

[newagelink]

So we are not marrying for love anymore are we? We are marrying because it conforms to society’s norms? To fuck and produce babies, is that all we will ever have marriage for? Why can't we change that, revolutionize marriage? Why can't we change marriage from a union of man and woman only to a union of a person and who they love

[seiberwing]

Well put.

[newagelink]

Why is your post anonymous? Did you forget to log in?

> The point here is it's YOUR opinion.

That isn't much of a point at all. And, by the way, you don't know my opinion; check it out. It's pro-equality and pro-marriage freedom.

> It's petty to push your culture onto other people's personal lives.

I wouldn't say 'petty'... more like 'controlling.' I more or less agree with you, though; I thought the amendment was very stupid. I voted yes, though, because that is my personal definition, and I had no reason not to; ultimately I want something to be passed that will make this amendment pointless.

The majority of your post I didn't respond to because, quite frankly, I'm in agreement with it. Any two humans of legal age should be able to marry each other. It's just wrong for our legal system to define for us what marriage is. (And there I point you, again, to my opinionMarriage should be left outside of the courthouse; Episcopalian marriages can be gay while Baptists and Catholics don't recognize them, and the legal system doesn't