Proposition 8 discussion continued - Page 42 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-09-2008, 08:23 PM   #616
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
testy testy.

5th largest religion in USA.



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

__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 08:32 PM   #617
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
i dunno google it

6.5 million?

<>

Keeping members a challenge for LDS church - Salt Lake Tribune
__________________

__________________
toscano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 08:45 PM   #618
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 02:14 PM
Nathan still hasn't answered the question yet, has he?
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 09:09 PM   #619
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 09:49 PM   #620
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 10:08 PM   #621
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:14 PM

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


Quote:
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 10:18 PM   #622
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
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.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 10:23 PM   #623
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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?
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 10:41 PM   #624
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:14 PM
bullying and harrasing people who don't vote your way isn't necessarily a legal channel.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 10:47 PM   #625
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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 ?
__________________
toscano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 10:50 PM   #626
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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?
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 10:50 PM   #627
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
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.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 11:01 PM   #628
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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:
Quote:
Since when is the judiciary not a legal channel?
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 11:05 PM   #629
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 11:07 PM   #630
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:14 PM
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.

<>
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com