Proposition 8 discussion continued

[diamond]

yet you Mormons somehow found the gumption to beg to be taken seriously as a religion.

testy testy.

5th largest religion in USA.



<>

 

[Diemen]

You're missing the point by a country mile.

 

[BVS]

when are gays sent to different bathrooms, segregated sections of schools, buses or restaurants?

Is this intentionally obtuse day?

You realize you sound like just like all the protestants that don't want to recognise you as a real Christian? You've never had seperate water fountains but you all sure did whine a lot...

 

[Se7en]

at one time i admired those of you that have the energy to keep this debate going, but now i'm beginning to think you're nuts. there is clearly no bridge to cross this particular great divide.

 

[Diemen]

when are gays sent to different bathrooms, segregated sections of schools, buses or restaurants?

Again, that's not the question. Here's the question:

What was the problem with racially segregated drinking fountains?

 

[Irvine511]

testy testy.

5th largest religion in USA.



<>

how many members does the LDS church have?

 

[diamond]

i dunno google it

6.5 million?

<>

 

[yolland]

when are gays sent to different bathrooms, segregated sections of schools, buses or restaurants?

Irrelevant.

Do you understand why the NAACP chose an education case--rather than, say, one involving drinking fountains or public transportation seating--as the linchpin of their attack on 'separate but equal'?

 

[Irvine511]

i dunno google it

6.5 million?

<>

there are *way* more homos out there.

 

[diamond]

Again, that's not the question. Here's the question:

doesn't relate to the subject.

race, creed and religion are protected under the constitution--that's why there is no longer segregation.

sexual orientaion is not protected under the constitution.


<>

 

[diamond]

there are *way* more homos out there.

is homosexuality a religion?

<>

 

[Irvine511]

is homosexuality a religion?

<>

no, it's an involuntary sexual orientation that's as unchosen as race or gender.

unlike a freely chosen religion with a history of it's own redefinition of marriage.

 

[toscano]

testy testy.

5th largest religion in USA.



<>

"we're big in japan"

 

[Diemen]

doesn't relate to the subject.

race, creed and religion are protected under the constitution--that's why there is no longer segregation.

sexual orientaion is not protected under the constitution.


<>

Because you don't see (or won't acknowledge) that it relates to the subject doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the discussion.

 

[Irvine511]

Because you don't see (or won't acknowledge) that it relates to the subject doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the discussion.

all *men* are created equal.

when that was written, "women" wasn't implied.

as ever,

the world only spins forward*.



* -- quick, without a google, what's that quote from?

 

[anitram]

testy testy.

5th largest religion in USA.



<>

So I guess you don't consider yourself to be Christian then.

 

[toscano]

i dunno google it

6.5 million?

<>

Keeping members a challenge for LDS church - Salt Lake Tribune

 

[martha]

Nathan still hasn't answered the question yet, has he?

 

[yolland]

race, creed and religion are protected under the constitution--that's why there is no longer segregation.

Yes, because people "acted like 3 year olds" about it. You're the one who suggested there's something unreasonable in reacting adversely to a vote which categorically denies access to a state-furnished status (not necessarily to the specific rights associated with that status). That's why I was inquiring into your reasoning as to why racially segregated drinking fountains were wrong: the right or service in question (free access to municipal water) wasn't being denied to anyone, nor in the prevailing legal opinions of the time did the Fourteenth Amendment forbid the maintenance of segregated fountains, so long as everyone had access to one.

Unless, of course, you wish to argue that segregated fountains only became wrong after the Warren Court decided (in the face of unassailable evidence that the facilities, supplies and staffing provided to black schools weren't "equal" at all) that de jure racial segregation did in fact violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Which, you'll note, says nothing about the possibility of maintaining separate (but equal) distribution of said privileges and protections on the basis of arbitrary (yet "tradition"-sanctioned) categories like race.

Is that the argument you're making? That prior to Brown there was nothing wrong at all with separate drinking fountains? Because that seems to be the argument you're making in the case of sexual discrimination: that until SCOTUS decides segregated access to the rights conferred by "marriage," on the basis of the applicants' sex (which is, precisely, the criterion--Proposition 8 wasn't proposing "only marriage between two heterosexuals..."), violates the Equal Protection Clause, then there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with that segregation. It's just a drinking fountain title, after all; the same services are provided (well, at least in terms of CA law) no matter which drinking fountain title you're allowed access to; so what are you whining about?

 

[diamond]

So I guess you don't consider yourself to be Christian then.

i'd be more concerned with what Christ would think about me before what the world thought, and in that regard I feel fine.



<>

 

[diamond]

Keeping members a challenge for LDS church - Salt Lake Tribune

once you're converted it's an easy religion to live.

For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more

 

[diamond]

Yes, because people "acted like 3 year olds" about it. You're the one who suggested there's something unreasonable in reacting adversely to a vote which categorically denies access to a state-furnished status (not necessarily to the specific rights associated with that status). That's why I was inquiring into your reasoning as to why racially segregated drinking fountains were wrong: the right or service in question (free access to municipal water) wasn't being denied to anyone, nor in the prevailing legal opinions of the time did the Fourteenth Amendment forbid the maintenance of segregated fountains, so long as everyone had access to one.

Unless, of course, you wish to argue that segregated fountains only became wrong after the Warren Court decided (in the face of unassailable evidence that the facilities, supplies and staffing provided to black schools weren't "equal" at all) that de jure racial segregation did in fact violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Which, you'll note, says nothing about the possibility of maintaining separate (but equal) distribution of said privileges and protections on the basis of arbitrary (yet "tradition"-sanctioned) categories like race.

Is that the argument you're making? That prior to Brown there was nothing wrong at all with separate drinking fountains? Because that seems to be the argument you're making in the case of sexual discrimination: that until SCOTUS decides segregated access to the rights conferred by "marriage," on the basis of the applicants' sex (which is, precisely, the criterion--Proposition 8 wasn't proposing "only marriage between two heterosexuals..."), violates the Equal Protection Clause, then there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with that segregation. It's just a drinking fountain title, after all; the same services are provided (well, at least in terms of CA law) no matter which drinking fountain title you're allowed access to; so what are you whining about?

again, i think gay unions are what they are and would encourage that movement to seek the same clauses/protections as married folk thru legal channels

i also know that a tomato is a not a vegetable.....
..and i can provide pictures if you so desire.

<>

 

[anitram]

again, i think gay unions are what they are and would encourage that movement to seek the same clauses/protections as married folk thru legal channels

Since when is the judiciary not a legal channel?

 

[diamond]

bullying and harrasing people who don't vote your way isn't necessarily a legal channel.

<>

 

[toscano]

once you're converted it's an easy religion to live.

You can have me when I'm dead like you do holocaust victims.

The Mormon Curtain - BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD

Conversion rates are slipping badly, good thing people are still dying eh ?

 

[anitram]

bullying and harrasing people who don't vote your way isn't necessarily a legal channel.

<>

Do you even read people's posts?

Since when is the judiciary not a legal channel?

 

[martha]

Nathan still hasn't answered the question yet, has he?

You gotta admit: it takes balls nowadays to say marriage isn't a civil right and that the Supreme Court had no business extending that non-civil right to the Lovings, because the good people of Virginia, through their freely and democratically elected representatives, had outlawed just that thing years before.

 

[Diemen]

again, i think gay unions are what they are and would encourage that movement to seek the same clauses/protections as married folk thru legal channels

I'll ask the question again:

It is my understanding that the Mormon church would oppose a bill granting gay civil unions the same rights as heterosexual marriages (why would they want to give equal rights to people they believe are actively engaging in sinful behavior?).

Time for your honesty cap, diamond: would you go against the church and vote in favor of such a bill?

Oh, and:

Since when is the judiciary not a legal channel?

 

[yolland]

i think gay unions are what they are

Well, at least you're honest: marriage is more about sex-based binary relationship roles than it is about anything else, including love or plans for children.

i also know that a tomato is a not a vegetable...

Ironically, for US legal purposes it is--see the SCOTUS case Nix v. Hedden (1893). It's true that, botanically, a tomato is a fruit; however, it's also true that, botanically, no such category as "vegetables" exists--that's an arbitrary culinary classification only.

 

[diamond]

semantics aside, it is a fruit, and a union between 2 of the same sex is not *marriage-based on gender.

*but approaches in levels of commitment etc.

<>