Ancient Domains Of Mystery, forum overview / General / Yea, California!
| Online users ( Unknown) |
| Application object not working properly at the moment, no clue who is online... * Numbers in parentheses are the number of minutes since the user last loaded a page. Logged-in users time out after 40 minutes (unless they manually log out), lurkers and anonymous posters after 20. |
This thread is 3 pages long.
| Go to page 1 2 3 |
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4908 days, 35 minutes and 20 seconds ago. |
'Nuff sed. |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3328 days, 1 hour, 42 minutes and 52 seconds ago. |
Ummm... what? A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
||
|
SoahCrM Unregistered user |
Obviously california is all Yea! with a little bit of Nuff |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4450 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes and 40 seconds ago. |
Gay marriage perhaps? That's the only Californy related news I've seen lately. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Sulangatori Registered user Tourist Last page view: 1652 days, 11 hours, 38 minutes and 28 seconds ago. |
Haha, seldom has 'nuff sed' left so much unsaid. |
||
|
J. Registered user You'll never get rid of me Last page view: 5875 days, 1 hour and 8 minutes ago. |
I watched the tv series "Californication" with Fox Mulder as the main star. It was good. That is all. If you're feeling happy, don't worry, it'll go away. Originally posted by noob: "I'm everytime amazed how you people know to exploit every single little bug (or not-bug) for elaborated scumming tatics even if the feature seems completely useless or bad." |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4908 days, 35 minutes and 20 seconds ago. |
Yeah, I was talking about the State Supreme Court's ruling on marriage between same-sex couples. |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3328 days, 1 hour, 42 minutes and 52 seconds ago. |
And what about it? Not everybody knows about what goes on in some culturally backwords country across the ocean ;P A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4279 days, 6 hours, 55 minutes and 50 seconds ago. |
Well, in that respect the US of A actually manage to be sort of more progressive than my home country. We went about the whole thing the German way: Instead of allowing homosexual people to marry, we created the institute of "registered life-partnership", which is kind of a marriage that isn't called marriage, gets its own laws and all that stuff, and which only can be formed between people of the same sex. So now we have same-sex marriages, only we don't call them that. Instead of husband and husband, or wife and wife, or however the participants are called in America now, we have registered life-partners. Tell me - do I fear rightly if I fear that this must sound pretty ridiculous to foreigners? You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! |
||
 Maul Registered user [banned user] Last page view: 5139 days, 6 hours, 39 minutes and 24 seconds ago. |
Well, I'm against gay marriages and everything, but I can say, I don't like it when they overcomplicate a simple thing, name it different and feel special. 1l= Y0(_) [4l\l R34[) 7l-l15, Y0(_) l\/l(_)57 83 PR377Y G00[). |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4450 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes and 40 seconds ago. |
Britain has a system similar to Germany's - "civil partnerships" they call it. Everyone treats it just like marriage though, and legally it's utterly identical. Technically straight couples can become civil partners too, but obviously it's just gay couples that do so. I think everyone's fairly happy with the situation, though it's silly to not just call it marriage. I'm happy to hear about Ellen planning to get married - I was always a fan of her old sitcom, and liked the way she managed coming out of the closet. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 5108 days, 8 hours, 30 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
> Tell me - do I fear rightly if I fear that this > must sound pretty ridiculous to foreigners? Doesn't sound silly to me at all. It brings to mind the old saying 'When you don't know what to do... do something'. Meaning, things don't have to always be perfect, sometimes trying as hard as you can is respectable enough. > Well, in that respect the US of A actually > manage to be sort of more progressive than my > home country. The awkward thing about the US of A, is that it is not like a regular country in some ways. It is a union of 50 VERY different states. The things that are made into law in one state, can have HUGE bearing in EVERY state, whether they like it or not. To the best of my knowledge, a 'gay marriage' that is formed in California, has to be recognized in every state in the union, whether they like it or not. Some states do not like having things like that imposed upon them, without having any say in the matter. My home state is one of them. I'm not saying I'm against gay people marrying each other. I just think that something like that should be decided on the federal level, where every state can have a say. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4279 days, 6 hours, 55 minutes and 50 seconds ago. |
Well, Germany also consists of 16 states, and indeed, this question is one of the many that are decided on the federal level for exactly the reasons gut has mentioned. So the USA probably are not more or less progressive than Germany, they just haven't yet had to form a compromise on this matter. I mean, I'd like to claim that only in the US do extreme Christian views have significant ways, but the current largest party in our parliament, and leading power of the majority of state governments, is called Christian Democratic Union. They are LOT less Christian than many people in the "red states" probably are, but they are Christian enough to object. Me, I can't really say. "Family and marriage are under special protection of the constitution" is, translated for better understanding, the content of the sixth article, first paragraph of the German Grundgesetz. In my idea of "family", at least the possibility of children is involved, so I have trouble really seeing why a bonding of two people who can't have children of their own should receive the same, for the lack of a better term, special protection as a traditional marriage. Of course, many traditional marriages remain childless, many voluntarily so, and I can also see a homosexual couple take over the care of an adopted child together, but still... You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/20/2008 at 05:43 (GMT -5) by Silfir] |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4450 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes and 40 seconds ago. |
Fundamentally it comes down to a matter of equality in my eyes. Why can't two people enjoy the same union and legal status (and the legal issue is a big one) as any other couple? Because some religion says it's somehow wrong? (even though many Christian religions now accept gay clergy) Britain is thankfully more secular in its laws. My home country of Ireland is a bit more backwards, but it's catching up. Not that it affects me anyway, but I really hate to see any element of discrimination or injustice like this. Huamnkind has a very long history of treating certain groups differently on the most shallow of bases, often with religious undertones. People openly decry racism and sexism these days, but laws that clearly discriminate against homosexuals are seen as perfectly okay. I think future generations will look back in shame. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4279 days, 6 hours, 55 minutes and 50 seconds ago. |
Legally, same-sex marriage has been implemented in many countries now. Even if it isn't called marriage mainly to not hurt the feelings of the Christians living in western countries, I think we've come a long way already. You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 5108 days, 8 hours, 30 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
> Because some religion says it's somehow wrong? If it were just 'some' religion, it would not be a scandal. I think that most (all?) of the major religions in the world have objections to it. It is true, that some of these churches have started accepting gay clergy, but it's also true that some of these churches handle rattlesnakes and drink cyanide. Most don't. Marraige has two parts: Legal, and religious. The legal side of gay marriage, I have no problem with. It's just the religious side of it that makes me feel a bit awkward. If a religion says not to do something, then people do that very thing, in the NAME of that religion, you can see how that would bother some other members. Example: "In the name of (insert name of diety) I kick this puppy!" "Yaarp!" That may be a bit offensive to many people, but it's mainly offensive to the people that worship that diety. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4450 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes and 40 seconds ago. |
And where does it say marriage has to be religious? A great many people get married without involving religion at all. Catholics are technically not allowed to get divorced, so according to the Church you're still married to your first wife even after getting divorced. In most Catholic countries you can still have a second marriage though, just not involving the Church. In practical terms marriage is a legal affair, with binding legal contracts. Religion is just something some people choose to add to it. Certainly for many years the tradition has been for religious organisations to preside over marriages, but it has not always been the tradition and it's a tradition that is not wholly dominant any more. Your argument seems to imply in fact that atheists can't get married, since they're not doing it in the name of God. It's adding religious discrimination to sexuality discrimination ;) (I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument - I know that's not what you meant.) Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/20/2008 at 15:09 (GMT -5) by Darren Grey] |
||
|
Maul Registered user [banned user] Last page view: 5139 days, 6 hours, 39 minutes and 24 seconds ago. |
Heh heh. I don't actively believe in any god, so perhaps it isn't religion, rather what I call the "order of nature" that inspires me to vouch against gay marriages. :) (Before I'm misunderstood, that doesn't mean I'll stab somebody in the gut because he/she is homosexual. But please try not to be vegetarians about it. Thank you.) And now let me tell you my honest opinion. Great, so there is a lot of talk about how religion still matters. Wasn't long ago when I heard how much of a fuss the people were making about the fact that Tony Blair or whoever converts to Roman Catholicism. I don't give a flying rat's buttocks about it! Seriously, Christians went to "their" "Holy Land" and killed lots of Muslims (while having their numbers thoroughly decimated as well). Crusades - a bit religious, no? And now, almost 1000 years later there's still all the talk about how religion permits this, forbids that. You worship this god, then you can't eat pork. You worship that god, then you can't marry other people of the same sex. Makes me sick! Now, I assume I'm a freak with my opinion - but at least I said it. I suppose it's high time to go to sleep now. Perhaps I'd even be curious to see some responses tomorrow, although I can see lots of disagreement. 1l= Y0(_) [4l\l R34[) 7l-l15, Y0(_) l\/l(_)57 83 PR377Y G00[). |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4450 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes and 40 seconds ago. |
I agree that vegetarians are evil :) Can't say I quite understand what the rest of your post was about, unless you're just making a tirade against religion in general. Personally I don't mind people having their own personal beliefs - it can be a good thing even. But I firmly believe religion should be kept completely separate from law and politics - the results of them mixing are always disastrous, and can be seen in many parts of the world today (including America). Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 5108 days, 8 hours, 30 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
I think you missed the point of my example. Re-read the example, and you will see that the legal side of things, is not the problem. Much of your post was making my point for me. A few examples: > And where does it say marriage has to be religious? and > you can still have a second marriage though, just > not involving the Church. and > In practical terms marriage is a legal affair, with > binding legal contracts. Religion is just something > some people choose to add to it. My point exactly. Why do gay people get married in christian churches, wouldn't other ceremonies suffice? It would certainly avoid a lot of controversy, and resentment. I think most religions are pretty clear about being against gay marriage, and when people perform a ceremony like that in the NAME of (whatever) religion, that bothers people. They don't want THEIR religion to be used that way, to them it seems like mockery. To the people that believe their religion forbids things like that, it would be like marrying an animal/corpse/whatever in the name of that religion. It's just bound to spark strong feelings. I think the 'civil unions' solution is an attempt to seperate the religious aspect from the legal one. Religious people find themselves in a bit of a strange possition. They can't file suit against those they believe are mocking their religion, the law doesn't (for good reason) allow for that. Some are trying to use the law in a round-about way. If they can prevent legal gay marriage, they reduce the 'mockery' of their religion. Most would agree, that's not what law should be used for, but many don't see an option. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4450 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes and 40 seconds ago. |
gut: > Why do gay people get married > in christian churches, wouldn't other ceremonies > suffice? It would certainly avoid a lot of > controversy, and resentment. I think you misunderstand things completely. There's no attempt to let gay people get married in whatever church they want (many churches would of course refuse to host such a ceremony). People just want registry office weddings - nothing to do with churches at all. In the same way Catholics remarrying do so in a registry office, not in a church (the Church won't let them, since they don't recognise the marriage). Thus it's an entirely secular marriage - no need for any involvement of religion or offending any religious beliefs. But under the law of most countries this is illegal, or they create some system with equivalent rights to marriage but don't call it marriage in case of causing offense to religious nuts (who as I said don't seem to mind atheists getting married in the same way). Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/20/2008 at 20:07 (GMT -5) by Darren Grey] |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 5108 days, 8 hours, 30 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
> People just want registry office weddings - nothing > to do with churches at all That's just not true. I have seen images on television, and in newspapers of some gay weddings. They may not be legally recognized, but the ceremonies do occur. As you mention in your previous post: > many Christian religions now accept gay clergy) Well, those same churches do also perform 'wedding' ceremonies for gay couples, with an authentic holy man included. Sometimes one of the partners will even wear a viel. This may not be typical of gay weddings, but to say no gay couples want it, just isn't true. I do not have pictures of these scenes on my HD, as I am no fanatic of the cause, one way or the other. I imagine though, if one did a google search, they could quickly locate many pictures of the scenes I describe. These images do not disturb me personally. How could they?! I play games where I occasionally indulge in human sacrifice : ) I do understand though, how some church members can be offended. I don't have a solution that would make everyone happy, but I don't think things will stand as they are for long. As things are, I think that (if every state in the union is forced to recognize gay marriages) a constitutional ban will be just around the corner : ( gut doesn't like constitution fiddling. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4450 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes and 40 seconds ago. |
gut: > This may not be typical of gay weddings, > but to say no gay couples want it, just isn't true. Valid point, but I can only presume that these pictures were from churches that accepted gay marriage - in which case you'd expect their practioners to follow suit (I know it's not that simple, but it should be). If you're from a different religion that doesn't allow it then it shouldn't matter to you, because it's not happening in your churches. gut: > I don't have a solution that would make everyone > happy, but I don't think things will stand as they > are for long. Well, the "civil partnership" idea seems to generally be acceptable enough (though even it had people against it). It does simply get referred to as marriage here most of the time. Of course in America you've got the odd situation of some states being way more liberal than others, leading to extreme variations across the country... it's a little late for a middle ground idea like civil partnership when some states have already gone whole hog. I don't think a constitutional ban could happen though - there'd be far too much of an uproar. In time I imagine people will just slowly accept the idea of gay marriage and it won't be such a big issue. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 5108 days, 8 hours, 30 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
> If you're from a different religion that doesn't > allow it then it shouldn't matter to you, because > it's not happening in your churches. Again, I disagree. I can completely understand how people would be irritated, if the name of their god is invoked, to justify/validate/condone/support behaviors they consider questionable. I refer once again to the first example I gave: > "In the name of (insert name of diety) I kick this puppy!" > "Yaarp!" If you can't see how that would bother people, I guess we're just on different pages on this one. It's something that no one can have control over, on the religious side of things. You can't force a churches to do what you want, and rightly so. That leads some to think that they should resort to the legal side. The thought being, if they pass laws to ban the legal recognition of it, maybe they won't have to see so much of it. Ultimately a flawed strategy, because it will continue regardless. > I don't think a constitutional ban could happen though I'm no lawyer, but if memory serves, it would only take a 66% majority to amend the constitution. In America's system, the 'smaller' states do have considerable collective power, and they would be the ones most irritated by the California law. Many (all?) of them would view this as being 'pushed around', and forced to accept gay marriages, whether they want to or not. > there'd be far too much of an uproar I think it is 'uproar' that is likely to cause the constitution fiddling, not prevent it : ( Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4279 days, 6 hours, 55 minutes and 50 seconds ago. |
Darren, the seperation of state and church is a fine idea, but unfortunately the political situation of the US is far from having such a separation. Religious beliefs creep into so many things there that a ban of same-sex marriage even in the "light" version instituted by the "civil partnership" or the "Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft" is far from only a theoretical possibility. American Christians are far more devout, and have far more power over there than in Germany and probably also the UK. They take it personally if someone does things they consider to be wrong, and do everything they can against it. Example? Creationism taught alongside evolution in schools. US politics make me bitter sometimes, and it would be far worse if I actually were a US citizen. I'd hate to be right, but I think the current situation regarding the upcoming elections will lead to yet another term of a Republican president, though I'll grant Mr McCain that he may not be as much of a nutcase as his predecessor. You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4450 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes and 40 seconds ago. |
> If you can't see how that would bother people, I > guess we're just on different pages on this one. It depends on how you define "god" I guess. You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that Catholics for instance will be angered seeing gay people being married in Anglican churches, even though Anglicans have no problem with it? In this sense looking at the Christian god as all one god, and getting offended by any sort of Christian gay marriage, even if it's not in their own particular branch. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 5108 days, 8 hours, 30 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
Silfir: > American Christians are far more devout, and have > far more power True about the political power, but it's kind of hard to judge devout-ness. The religious powers haven't always been as powerful as they are now. It will not stay at it's current power level forever though, because as soon as religious people stop being outraged, they go back to keeping their paychecks to themselves. > Creationism taught alongside evolution in schools In my own home state, we don't do that in public schools. Some private schools here do, and in some other states the public schools may. If I had to guess, I would say less than 10% of American schools teach that. I don't think it would hurt anyone to hear it, but I don't really think it would convince anyone either, so ultimately a waste of money. Darren: > You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) > that Catholics for instance will be angered seeing > gay people being married in Anglican churches, even > though Anglicans have no problem with it? I can't speak for Catholics, that's why I tried to speak in the 'collective'. I'm pretty sure that no major religion condones gay marriage. There may be churches within a religion that do condone it, but like I said earlier, there are also churches in which the followers handle rattlesnakes, and drink cyanide. You don't have to limit things to just one controversial practice, you could substitute basically anything. If a (insert religion) church condones beastiality, necrophilia, or any other controversial thing (that their religion forbids), don't you think that would irritate other people, within that religion? Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4908 days, 35 minutes and 20 seconds ago. |
Yea! This is what I was hoping for. :-) |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4908 days, 35 minutes and 20 seconds ago. |
Silfir: Re: German Partnerships Only two states in the U.S. allow marriage between same sex couples: Massachussetts and California (soon) There are other states that allow Civil Unions. So far, the issue has not been raised to the Federal level. The Massachussetts court put it best: (paraphrase) "History has taught us that 'separate' is rarely, if ever, equal." Blacks used to be relegated to separate schools, housing, restaurants, etc. (even bathrooms and water fountains) Funding, treatment and even laws differed greatly between the Blacks only places and the whites only ones, in spite of claims of equality. Re: Marriage needing the possibility of children 1) Gays and Lesbians do adopt (heck, Lesbians can have kids via artificial insemination) 2) Marriage grants enormous benefits aside from kids: hospital visitation, inheritance, citizenship, spousal privilege, right to make decisions if a spouse is incapactitated, etc. 3) A dear family member of mine had a hysterectomy when she was in her 20's. Should her marriage not be valid? [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/22/2008 at 19:29 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4450 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes and 40 seconds ago. |
Also a great many people have children outside wedlock. Whilst marriage is often associated with children it really is silly to try to base some law on this. Laws must be founded on straightforward facts, and importantly must apply the rules to everyone equally. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
| Go to page 1 2 3 |