U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: As a Marylander, would you support Ben Carson for a GOP Presidential Bid in 2016?
Yes 16 38.10%
No 21 50.00%
I don't know who Ben Carson is 5 11.90%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-02-2013, 08:18 AM
 
Location: DMV
10,136 posts, read 11,245,519 times
Reputation: 3176

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel95 View Post
It is a law of exclusion in that doesn't affect anyone except the people it is trying to help. If you don't agree with gay marraige you aren't unable to do anything you were before, nothing is being forced upon you.
I'm not a gun owner either, so should I simply accept the position of someone that is either for/against gun laws, just because it has no impact on me? That is flawed logic. Every single law that we have doesn't affect every single individual, yet we are all expected to make a decision or have a view on them. That is what makes this a democracy. I can think of tons of laws that probably don't affect you, but you probably helped make the decision on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel95 View Post
Marraige is a religious institution but it is also a legal instituion and unfortunately they share the same name. A priest can marry you but so can a judge or even a boat captain. You get divorced in a civil court, not in a church. As far as the LEGAL institution of marraige why should any two adults be excluded from it?
That is a fair point, but I would argue, what is the basis of the definition. Was marriage in the legal sense, re-defined when it became a legal institution or was the premise of when this nation defined marriage based on some previously established entity. In order to create the institution of marriage, our nation's forefathers received it from some where. They did not just invent marriage. That is what we should be look at instead of trying to come up with separate definition. If we create a new definition for everything that they created, we would have a crazy, crazy country and not in a good way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel95 View Post
Why isn't their such outcry over divorce?
Because divorce isn't considered wrong from my understanding. I'm not really sure where you are going with this. Who do you expect to have an outcry over divorce?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2013, 08:19 AM
 
581 posts, read 955,836 times
Reputation: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Fingerprinting isn't extreme?
not really, what is extreme about it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 08:23 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
32,178 posts, read 39,387,845 times
Reputation: 40699
Quote:
Originally Posted by ay jayy View Post
not really, what is extreme about it?
If you don't know then you wouldn't understand any explanation.

How about fingerprinting to vote? Or open a bank account?

As a note I have been printed for both the military and work so mine are already on file.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 08:28 AM
 
581 posts, read 955,836 times
Reputation: 503
I have been fingerprinted for things that I feel carry less responsibility than being a gun owner so it wouldn't seem like a big deal if I were to get fingerprinted to buy a gun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Warner Robins, GA
905 posts, read 2,221,392 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
I'm not a gun owner either, so should I simply accept the position of someone that is either for/against gun laws, just because it has no impact on me? That is flawed logic. Every single law that we have doesn't affect every single individual, yet we are all expected to make a decision or have a view on them. That is what makes this a democracy. I can think of tons of laws that probably don't affect you, but you probably helped make the decision on it.
I'm not a gun owner either but I am against some of the recent gun legislation because it does affect my ability to do something. I also think some of it is unreasonable because it isn't addressing the problem based on the facts and statistics that are available. I just don't think this is quite an apples to apples comparison


Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
That is a fair point, but I would argue, what is the basis of the definition. Was marriage in the legal sense, re-defined when it became a legal institution or was the premise of when this nation defined marriage based on some previously established entity. In order to create the institution of marriage, our nation's forefathers received it from some where. They did not just invent marriage. That is what we should be look at instead of trying to come up with separate definition. If we create a new definition for everything that they created, we would have a crazy, crazy country and not in a good way.
You are right in that everyone derives their morailty from different places and I see the point you are trying to make about it all had to come from somewhere. However, most proponents, myself included that this is a civil rights issue that has been brought about by a change in culture and the realization that this is excluding a large group of people from the legal benefits of marraige based solely on their sexual orientation. This is just following the path taken by other social groups (women, inter-racial couples, etc.) to have equal rights.

As an atheist it is hard to argue some of these points with religious people because we view the bible as fiction. Even if we were to use it as the basis for laws and morals many years ago it doesn't seem fair to cherry pick from it. While it speaks out against homosexuality it also gives you instructions on how to sell your daughter. It seems a bit outdated doesn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
Because divorce isn't considered wrong from my understanding. I'm not really sure where you are going with this. Who do you expect to have an outcry over divorce?
If you want to talk about crapping on the institution of marraige there it is. What is the point of an "eternal" bond if you can just end it at any time for any reason? Catholics for example are vehemently against it, see King Henry VIII. Why shouldn't gays have the right to partake and crap on marraige just like everyone else?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 08:54 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
32,178 posts, read 39,387,845 times
Reputation: 40699
Quote:
Originally Posted by ay jayy View Post
I have been fingerprinted for things that I feel carry less responsibility than being a gun owner so it wouldn't seem like a big deal if I were to get fingerprinted to buy a gun.

You didn't answer my question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 09:03 AM
 
Location: DMV
10,136 posts, read 11,245,519 times
Reputation: 3176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel95 View Post
I'm not a gun owner either but I am against some of the recent gun legislation because it does affect my ability to do something. I also think some of it is unreasonable because it isn't addressing the problem based on the facts and statistics that are available. I just don't think this is quite an apples to apples comparison
That was just an example, but there are many others that absolutely apply as a comparison. Even with that said, gun rights do not directly impact every single person in this country. If you are not a gun owner and never plan on being one, then why should regulations impact you? That is the logic that is being used here with homosexuality. Because it doesn't impact someone they shouldn't have an opinion? Is that really fair? What if someone told you that you can't vote on gun laws because you don't own guns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel95 View Post
You are right in that everyone derives their morailty from different places and I see the point you are trying to make about it all had to come from somewhere. However, most proponents, myself included that this is a civil rights issue that has been brought about by a change in culture and the realization that this is excluding a large group of people from the legal benefits of marraige based solely on their sexual orientation. This is just following the path taken by other social groups (women, inter-racial couples, etc.) to have equal rights.
I don't see it as a civil rights issue. A woman cannot control the fact that she was born a woman. A black man cannot control the fact that he was born black. Homosexuals is different. There have been many conflicting studies about the origin of one becoming homosexual. There is a conclusive answer as to if sexual orientation is a biological or environmental thing. Until that day comes, I do not believe it is fair to put that in the same category as race or gender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel95 View Post
As an atheist it is hard to argue some of these points with religious people because we view the bible as fiction. Even if we were to use it as the basis for laws and morals many years ago it doesn't seem fair to cherry pick from it. While it speaks out against homosexuality it also gives you instructions on how to sell your daughter. It seems a bit outdated doesn't it?
I'm certain just like many atheists and other non-Christians, that you are likely referring to text that is written in Leviticus. Leviticus included laws that were established during those times and many of the things that were brought up in Leviticus simply do not apply to modern time. Those rules were meant for people who were under the law, but as a Christian, a believer is no longer subject to those laws, but instead we fall under the new convenant. And yes contrary to what many people believe, the Bible addresses homosexuality in the new testament, under the new convenant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel95 View Post
If you want to talk about crapping on the institution of marraige there it is. What is the point of an "eternal" bond if you can just end it at any time for any reason? Catholics for example are vehemently against it, see King Henry VIII. Why shouldn't gays have the right to partake and crap on marraige just like everyone else?
Are we talking about divorce or marriage? I can't speak for Catholicism but there are two Biblical reasons for Christians to get divorce. It is not forbidden but it's strongly discouraged. Unfortunately like many things in Christianity, people prevent what the word of God states and misuse the intent. Marriage is supposed to an eternal bond, holy covenant with God and your spouse but people don't understand that. With that said, it doesn't mean that we should further pervert what it states. If anything we should uphold it more. The argument that because people misuse marriage more people should be able to do so (homosexuals) is wrong. It doesn't make it right, it just mean more are wrong. The word of God is clear and hasn't changed on that topic, people have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Warner Robins, GA
905 posts, read 2,221,392 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
That was just an example, but there are many others that absolutely apply as a comparison. Even with that said, gun rights do not directly impact every single person in this country. If you are not a gun owner and never plan on being one, then why should regulations impact you? That is the logic that is being used here with homosexuality. Because it doesn't impact someone they shouldn't have an opinion? Is that really fair? What if someone told you that you can't vote on gun laws because you don't own guns?
It still doesn't seem like an apples to apples comparison to me. You are permitted under the law to own a gun and you are permitted under the law to not own a gun. It is not the same scenario with gay marraige.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
I don't see it as a civil rights issue. A woman cannot control the fact that she was born a woman. A black man cannot control the fact that he was born black. Homosexuals is different. There have been many conflicting studies about the origin of one becoming homosexual. There is a conclusive answer as to if sexual orientation is a biological or environmental thing. Until that day comes, I do not believe it is fair to put that in the same category as race or gender.
I and many others disagree with this. It is just as unbelievable to us as the fact that inter-racial couples couldn't get married and women couldn't vote.

Seriously though we could all live in harmony on this issue. Those who oppose would in reality not have anything change in their day to day lives. The people who were previously excluded would be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. I just don't see the need to exclude a group of people from doing something based on a book that was written many many years before the age of science. You have to at least see where I am coming from? I have read a ton of your posts and have never thought your responses to be anything other than intelligent and well-informed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
I'm certain just like many atheists and other non-Christians, that you are likely referring to text that is written in Leviticus. Leviticus included laws that were established during those times and many of the things that were brought up in Leviticus simply do not apply to modern time. Those rules were meant for people who were under the law, but as a Christian, a believer is no longer subject to those laws, but instead we fall under the new convenant. And yes contrary to what many people believe, the Bible addresses homosexuality in the new testament, under the new convenant.



Are we talking about divorce or marriage? I can't speak for Catholicism but there are two Biblical reasons for Christians to get divorce. It is not forbidden but it's strongly discouraged. Unfortunately like many things in Christianity, people prevent what the word of God states and misuse the intent. Marriage is supposed to an eternal bond, holy covenant with God and your spouse but people don't understand that. With that said, it doesn't mean that we should further pervert what it states. If anything we should uphold it more. The argument that because people misuse marriage more people should be able to do so (homosexuals) is wrong. It doesn't make it right, it just mean more are wrong. The word of God is clear and hasn't changed on that topic, people have.
I don't really disagree with anything in this paragraph other than the fact that the bible should have any validity at all in regards to legislation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 11:32 AM
 
Location: DMV
10,136 posts, read 11,245,519 times
Reputation: 3176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel95 View Post
It still doesn't seem like an apples to apples comparison to me. You are permitted under the law to own a gun and you are permitted under the law to not own a gun. It is not the same scenario with gay marraige.
The point of bringing it up is just because it is perceived that something doesn't affect me doesn't mean I should not be able to have say in it. Contrary to popular belief, marriage is much more drawn out then letting two people of the same sex marry. This type of legislation has a trickle down effect. You can even see it even right now. The repeal of DADT, schools including homosexuality in their sex education curriculum, etc. As far as I am concern, I have two children who in a few years will both be going to school. I believe it greatly affects me when my children may have to go to school and be taught that homosexuality is okay. That is crossing the line in my opinion. The fact is you simply can't confine something such as marriage just strictly to someone's relationship. It is bound to have affects on other parts of society. If this was not happening in schools the conversation would be different, but at that point, that is an example of why, yes I should be concerned about this law and have an informed opinion about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel95 View Post
I and many others disagree with this. It is just as unbelievable to us as the fact that inter-racial couples couldn't get married and women couldn't vote.
Inter-racial relationships never changed the definition of marriage. The regulations to prevent inter-racial couples from marrying wasn't even national law, it only applied to certain states. What is being discussed here is changing not only the definition of the word but to also possibly push for national legislation.

The two are not apple to apples comparison either. I can prove to you that I do not control my race or my gender, but can someone prove where their sexual orientation comes from? So how is that the same as race or gender?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel95 View Post
Seriously though we could all live in harmony on this issue. Those who oppose would in reality not have anything change in their day to day lives. The people who were previously excluded would be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. I just don't see the need to exclude a group of people from doing something based on a book that was written many many years before the age of science. You have to at least see where I am coming from? I have read a ton of your posts and have never thought your responses to be anything other than intelligent and well-informed.
See my response above.

I disagree with your assessment, you are turning this into a religious discussion. Do you think the Islam religion supports same sex marriage? I think it's unfair to say that this is just strictly based on the Bible (which technically the foundation of this nation does come from that), but we also have to acknowledge people with other non-Christian beliefs who have the same beliefs. There are some people who just simply disagree with homosexuality but do not scribe to Christianity or any other 'religion' (I believe EdwardA on here stated that he was one). Do you not agree that these people exist? How can we say that the Bible influences their views?

I certain respect and appreciate your comments. I believe you are an intelligent, respectful and well-informed poster yourself. I want to point out that this is one of the few times that I have been able to discuss this topic civilly with someone with an opposing view. We may not agree everything that each other is saying, but I'm sure we can agree that there is a lot of misconceptions and misleading information coming from both sides of the public in this debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel95 View Post
I don't really disagree with anything in this paragraph other than the fact that the bible should have any validity at all in regards to legislation.
I look at it like this. There has to be some type of truth in this life. If we all formed our own opinions about certain things, then we would never be able to function as a society. Look at how our current Congress interacts. This is what happens when you have people with opposing views who don't have a set standard for dealing with one another. In our society, there are far too many people who will based their ideas of right and wrong strictly off of what they have experienced. In order to function, we all have to find common ground. That is the only way we can create laws and maintain order. What sets the example for those things? Can we pick one individual and say that this person knows right and wrong? I can't think of one because we are all flawed. We can find faults in anyone, so my question for you is what do we reference as a way of knowing right and wrong, that is infallible? If it's not the Bible then how do we know what will give us these answer?

Do you believe stealing is wrong? Do you believe killing is wrong? Do you believe committing adultery is wrong? If you said yes to all those things, then how do you as an individual know that those things are wrong? What basis do you have to know that those things are wrong and that they should be made into law?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Warner Robins, GA
905 posts, read 2,221,392 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
The point of bringing it up is just because it is perceived that something doesn't affect me doesn't mean I should not be able to have say in it. Contrary to popular belief, marriage is much more drawn out then letting two people of the same sex marry. This type of legislation has a trickle down effect. You can even see it even right now. The repeal of DADT, schools including homosexuality in their sex education curriculum, etc. As far as I am concern, I have two children who in a few years will both be going to school. I believe it greatly affects me when my children may have to go to school and be taught that homosexuality is okay. That is crossing the line in my opinion. The fact is you simply can't confine something such as marriage just strictly to someone's relationship. It is bound to have affects on other parts of society. If this was not happening in schools the conversation would be different, but at that point, that is an example of why, yes I should be concerned about this law and have an informed opinion about it.
I hear what you are trying to say here, just don't agree with all of it. You have a fair point in your concern for your kids being taught in schools something that is contrary to your beliefs. I certainly would not like bible study to be a regular part of the curriculum in my childs education. Whether or not gays can marry doesn't change the fact that it is becoming more accepted as time goes on. There were two outwardly gay couples in my high school and I happened to have the locker directly adjacent to them, the dudes my junior year and the girls my senior year. It never bothered me but your kid will absolutely be exposed to these situations. I never heard someone speak negatively about them so I like to think the majority of the student body supported it. This was almost 10 years ago by the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
Inter-racial relationships never changed the definition of marriage. The regulations to prevent inter-racial couples from marrying wasn't even national law, it only applied to certain states. What is being discussed here is changing not only the definition of the word but to also possibly push for national legislation.

The two are not apple to apples comparison either. I can prove to you that I do not control my race or my gender, but can someone prove where their sexual orientation comes from? So how is that the same as race or gender?
Again I get what you are trying to say here and this is the most reasonable argument I have heard in opposition to gay marraige. So pretty much an impasse here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
See my response above.

I disagree with your assessment, you are turning this into a religious discussion. Do you think the Islam religion supports same sex marriage? I think it's unfair to say that this is just strictly based on the Bible (which technically the foundation of this nation does come from that), but we also have to acknowledge people with other non-Christian beliefs who have the same beliefs. There are some people who just simply disagree with homosexuality but do not scribe to Christianity or any other 'religion' (I believe EdwardA on here stated that he was one). Do you not agree that these people exist? How can we say that the Bible influences their views?

I certain respect and appreciate your comments. I believe you are an intelligent, respectful and well-informed poster yourself. I want to point out that this is one of the few times that I have been able to discuss this topic civilly with someone with an opposing view. We may not agree everything that each other is saying, but I'm sure we can agree that there is a lot of misconceptions and misleading information coming from both sides of the public in this debate.



I look at it like this. There has to be some type of truth in this life. If we all formed our own opinions about certain things, then we would never be able to function as a society. Look at how our current Congress interacts. This is what happens when you have people with opposing views who don't have a set standard for dealing with one another. In our society, there are far too many people who will based their ideas of right and wrong strictly off of what they have experienced. In order to function, we all have to find common ground. That is the only way we can create laws and maintain order. What sets the example for those things? Can we pick one individual and say that this person knows right and wrong? I can't think of one because we are all flawed. We can find faults in anyone, so my question for you is what do we reference as a way of knowing right and wrong, that is infallible? If it's not the Bible then how do we know what will give us these answer?

Do you believe stealing is wrong? Do you believe killing is wrong? Do you believe committing adultery is wrong? If you said yes to all those things, then how do you as an individual know that those things are wrong? What basis do you have to know that those things are wrong and that they should be made into law?

This gets brought up in the Atheist vs. religion debate a lot. Atheism has no official spokesperson and no official thoughts so I can only speak for myself.

I don't deny that religion has some good teachings to offer. I like to give people from thousands of years ago the benefit of the doubt and say that they came up with some of these ideas (like the 10 commandments) from personal experience and common sense. I imagine the conversation went something like "hey it sucks to get killed, why don't we encourage people not to kill each other", "Good Idea Jesus!" or something like that.

I form my own opinions from what I observe around me and try to treat others the way I would like to be treated. I don't attribute it to a higher power just to common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top