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.
I think the attempt to rip the sign went too far and is indefensible- the religious do have a right to free speech and no one has the right to damage someone else's property.
However, I certainly support the sentiment that the protestors in the video showed against religious bigotry and I do think this is a widespread view in our state.
RI was founded on freedom of personal conscience and soul liberty and there is no reason to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry based on some sect's religious view.
In short, these people can demonstrate but I doubt they will get a lot of support. If you share their intolerance jviello, you might want to move elsewhere.
only Tea Party people can be intolerant, didn't you get the memo?
INTOLERANCE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
Certainly seems to be that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree
I think the attempt to rip the sign went too far and is indefensible- the religious do have a right to free speech and no one has the right to damage someone else's property.
However, I certainly support the sentiment that the protestors in the video showed against religious bigotry and I do think this is a widespread view in our state.
RI was founded on freedom of personal conscience and soul liberty and there is no reason to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry based on some sect's religious view.
In short, these people can demonstrate but I doubt they will get a lot of support. If you share their intolerance jviello, you might want to move elsewhere.
I guess what really has taken me back is how vile and vitriolic the people got. What happened to civil discourse? Pushing people, spitting on people, cussing them out calling the guy a "little fagg*t" (as you defend homosexuality. ) telling them they have 20 minutes to "leave" or "else".
I'm perfectly fine with debate and differing viewpoints...but that level of ignorance and hate I don't have time for. It seems freedom of personal conscience is only allowed for those who are in agreement.
As for my personal view, the government should not be in the business of marrying anybody - period. It's not their place. I am pro family and pro liberty.
Move here, we need more people to stem the tide of the "progressive" movement.
Roger Williams embraced religious tolerance. Saying he would accept marriage between anything other than a man and a woman is not founded and quite a stretch, particularly given the times in which he lived....
With very few exceptions throughout human history marriage has always been between a man and woman. I have not seen anything indicating that these people are talking about outlawing homosexuality, so turning their defense of traditional marriage into some sort of hatred of homosexuals is disingenuous as well as being a red herring.
As I see it the problem is that marriage is a religious ceremony that is licensed and recognized by the state, thus making the two inseperable (at this time). Until such time as the state issues some sort of civil union certificate for traditional and same sex couples, treating them equally, this will continue to be an issue. In a truly seperated church and state scenario, the marriage, performed within the church, is strictly a religious ceremony. A civil union, administered by the state, is a legal contract entered into by two parties voluntarily. Why the state was involved in marriage, from a 21st century perspective, is curious, although in historical context it is an obvious progression.
So, we have a religious ceremony that is recognized by the state, and religious people are upset that the state would recognize that ceremony if it were conducted outside the confines of their belief system. If the state were to drop the term "marriage" would the religious folks be satisfied?
If the requirements for recognizing the legal union of two persons, regardless of sex, but incumbent upon legal age and competency issues, were uniform, and a "marriage" ceremony performed in a church was legally recognized by just the church, would both sides continue to be aggrieved, or would they be happy? Could they have priests assume the duty of a Justice of the Peace for the purpose of overseeing the legal union coincidental to the church's ceremony? Or does that cross church and state lines?
Would not recognizing the church marriage violate the First Amendment? Does recognizing the church's marriage ceremony as a legal union violate the First Amendment? Do the homosexual couples require the "marriage" ceremony to feel that they are truly "normal"? Is it a statement, or a bit of each?
Some of this conflict, I believe, is due to each side trying to convince the other side that they are wrong. If the homosexual couples just went and got civil unioned, and weren't holding ceremonies on the state house steps (you know, like everyone else doesn't), the religious people wouldn't feel like they were having their noses rubbed in poo. They may then stay home to do something productive.
One of the things I've never been felt comfortable enough to discuss with the people I know who would know is why the homosexuals feel the need to imitate the people that hate them by copying the church's marriage ceremony. It seems to me that if you are happy with who and what you are you certainly don't need the approval of people who are diametrically opposed to your orientation for your living arrangements. Why all this energy spent in conflict? I have a male couple in my neighborhood. Their status is no secret, but it's not an issue, either. No one gives a damn because it is no ones business. they live in no more or less isolation than the rest of us. Now, if they were waving signs in the front yard, it would be an issue. If we had a neighbor waving signs telling the guys they were sinners, or left handed pastry chefs, or whatever, we'd have an issue with that neighbor. Folks don't flaunt their habits, usually. I'm sure if S&M folks, or diaper freaks, or people who believe militantly that sex should only be on tuesdays in the dark missionary style with your opposite sex partner, were pushing their choices in the faces of others there would be backlash from somewhere. Same as we see here.
Conversely, if the religious people would recognize that marriage is a religious condition and that a civil union is a legal one, and that homosexuality may be an abomination to God but not to the state, maybe we'd all be a little happier. We usually are when people mind their own flipping business.
I think the attempt to rip the sign went too far and is indefensible- the religious do have a right to free speech and no one has the right to damage someone else's property.
However, I certainly support the sentiment that the protestors in the video showed against religious bigotry and I do think this is a widespread view in our state.
RI was founded on freedom of personal conscience and soul liberty and there is no reason to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry based on some sect's religious view.
In short, these people can demonstrate but I doubt they will get a lot of support. If you share their intolerance jviello, you might want to move elsewhere.
To write it off as "some sect's religious view" is fairly inaccurate, since the entire Christian faith, which includes many, many sects, denomimations, Roman Catholicism, Messianic Judaism, and Protestantism. etc. are all based on the Bible which takes a very clear stance on homosexuality. You are dismissing the vast majority of faith-based Americans as "some sect".
As Christians, we are taught to love others, but we don't have to accept everything that society deems okay. That is reverse discrimination and just as intolerant. It seems more and more like it's open season on Bible-believing Christians in our society, and you can see by the increase in the ills of society such as divorce, domestic violence, crime, and corruption that a lot of Americans have turned away from the Bible's teachings.
Just sayin'...I don't hate anyone, and they shouldn't hate me just because I try to follow the Bible's teachings. Live and let live needs to work both ways.
Indeed, live and let live needs to work both ways but these people were proselytizing on the street thus opening themselves up to the reactions of passersby.
Had they MYOB and kept their religion at home or in church where it belongs, no one would have cared.
I don't think people should be judging an entire state by a video , News story , Forbes facts or rumors , one needs to get out and explore that state. The Problem these days is thats not happening. People said Newark , Providence , Trenton are bad to the bone , but thats not what i'm finding at all.... New Englanders tend to be very laided back and Educated people , that said you should have no problems living in RI. When New Englanders or Northeasterns are provoked like that we do tend to fight back , sometimes a little over the top. People are just trying to walk down the street and then they see this big sign with that on it , it ruins there day....and walk. But if you look at the other videos ppl are aggressive in other cities , its more of a human reaction thing then a RI thing.
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.
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.
) telling them they have 20 minutes to "leave" or "else". 
