equality blooms with spring - Page 59 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-14-2009, 12:37 AM   #871
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
But honorable men can be wrong, fearful, and intolerant.
I certainly agree.

I wonder what President Obama's grandchildren will think of him when they hear him say, "I believe a marriage is union between a man and a woman"

YouTube - Barack Obama on Gay Marriage

Will he be remembered as an old fashioned bigot? A backwards thinking conservative who is "fearful and intolerant"?
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 12:40 AM   #872
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post

But honorable men can be wrong, fearful, and intolerant. And "holding the line" when it comes to denying people Constitutional protection when they've committed no crime is on the wrong side of both history and honor.
I certainly agree.

I wonder what President Obama's grandchildren will think of him when they hear him say, "I believe a marriage is union between a man and a woman"

YouTube - Barack Obama on Gay Marriage

Will Barak Obama be remembered as an old fashioned bigot? A backwards thinking conservative who is "fearful and intolerant"? As someone that denied people their Constitutional protection and was on "the wrong side of both history and honor"?
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 03:01 AM   #873
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post


Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
Can you please point out where I can find this in the Constitution?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 09:58 AM   #874
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Can you please point out where I can find this in the Constitution?
It's just the unalienable rights of man listed by the Declaration of Independence, to which I hear conservatives on talk shows bring up every chance they get... why don't they believe them?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:03 AM   #875
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Will Barak Obama be remembered as an old fashioned bigot? A backwards thinking conservative who is "fearful and intolerant"? As someone that denied people their Constitutional protection and was on "the wrong side of both history and honor"?
I think Obama will be remembered as a president who politically had to play the fence, but only time will tell what he does for gay rights.

The difference is, he's not fighting for it, he's not vocally standing on some platform in order to save a dictionary term that has been changed throughout history.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:05 AM   #876
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
you find that prohibiting an organization from discriminating against people -- not forcing them to do anything, as it states -- is too much to ask of an organization? for them to, you know, FOLLOW THE LAW?
Apparantly, I'm not the only one. The ACLU also thinks that this new law certification law goes too far. This is from Nov. 12.

Quote:
Originally Posted by washington post interview
Denton, Md.: Hasn't the ACLU also voiced its opinion to the D.C. Council on this? They also asked for broader protections for religious groups, right? The Council should listen when the Church and the ACLU are agreeing on an issue.

Patrick J. Deneen: The ACLU testified at the testimony that the proposed legislation represented a narrowing of religious liberty. They proposed a broader religious exemption than the originally proposed bill. The original bill proposed no religious exemptions for any religious organizations that serves the general public(whether they use public funding or not). The ACLU argued for broader exemptions than are in the current legislation - for instance, the ACLU argued for the protection of private individuals who would refuse - on the basis of faith commitments - to provide goods or services for the solemnization of marriage. The current proposed legislation does not provide for any such exemption of private individuals. Here the argument was made not (only) by religious institutions, but the ACLU.
It certainly seems the Washington Post article orginally posted was perhaps a little bit biased.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:20 AM   #877
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I don't think the Catholic Church considers their stance discriminatory. It seems they feel compelled by the city to promote and endorse homosexuality because of this new law that requires them to earn this "certificate" stating they will, among other things, give children to gay couples and allow gay couples to rent out the Church property for non-wedding events.

I can't find an example of the Catholic Church passing out condoms - please elaborate.

And as far as I can tell, the Church does not currently need to achieve a certificate that demands that they MUST give children to divorced couples and MUST allow divorced couples to rent out the Church property. The Church should be allowed to determine what they consider to be a safe, morally sound place for these children - and should be allowed to determine which group rents out their property.



I simply believe in this case, the Church does not want the city to determine what homes they place children and what groups can rent their property. Additionally, in their view, giving "spousal" benefits to a homosexual couple is the same as giving benefits to a shacked up couple. The Church only recognize a spouse as a product of a marriage, and marriage can only happen between one man and one woman.



Scapegoat for what?

However, after all this being said - it is still a great example of why churches shouldn't accept taxpayer money. If there was no taxpayer money involved, this wouldn't be an issue.



hey, if childish ideological purity is more important than providing services to the needy and respecting and following the laws of the city of Washington DC, then the Catholic Church should get itself out of the charity business. i think this will be important to explain to the people who are going to freeze to death this winter.

if that's what's important here, if the right to discriminate against gays is more important than helping people in need, then the church should abandon it's decades of exemplary work with the poor. this appears to be your position, AEON. somehow, Catholic charities have survived in New England, but apparently DC is different. here, i am to understand, and you agree, the adherence to doctrine -- as disputed as you and i and Melon know that doctrine is -- is more important than helping people.

clearly, the Catholic Church has always remained pure and strictly adhered to its doctrine in the past. evidently there's new doctrine: "thou shalt deny legally required benefit payments to those whose status you deem to be sinful".

the Catholic Church may adhere to its own doctrines in terms of what marriages it sanctifies. however, it has no place seeking to use the secular law to force its doctrines on others. why does the church work with a city that remarries people after they've been divorced and their previous spouses are still living?

i find this a sad situation because i know how good the Catholic Church is at these things. however, you seem to be applauding whatever it is they need to do to remain pure. allowing individual exemptions opens the door to discriminate on the basis of *any* religious principle. what if the Catholic Church was opposed to interracial marriage (as many churches were in teh 1960s)? where does it end? there is no absolute right to religious freedom or the expression of religious belief. you may not sacrifice your firstborn child simply because your religion may allow it, and likewise, you may not refuse to give your child treatment for disease because your religion teaches that you can just pray it away.

you can follow your religious beliefs insofar as they follow the laws of the country in which you live. and if you believe the laws should be changed, well, that's what we have "activist judges" for.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:21 AM   #878
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
It certainly seems the Washington Post article orginally posted was perhaps a little bit biased.


i think Deenan is more biased.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:26 AM   #879
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
It certainly seems the Washington Post article orginally posted was perhaps a little bit biased.


i think Deenan is more biased.

as it stands right now, he bill would exempt churches from performing marriage ceremonies and renting out space to gays and lesbians should it conflict with their religious beliefs; however, it would still require all institutions to abide by laws regarding benefits. further, the Church would have to allow for adoptions to be granted through their services -- and in the past, the Catholic Church has allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, just not married gays and lesbians -- and to rent halls to gays and lesbians for reasons other than marriage.

again, who's being unreasonable?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:26 AM   #880
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I think Obama will be remembered as a president who politically had to play the fence....
BVS, you and others in here have claimed that gay marriage is a basic human right. In this interview, Barak not only disagrees that gay marriage is a human right, he goes so far as to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and that it is a holy, ordained act before God ("God is involved")

He then proposes "civil unions" similar to the ones proposed by more conservative minds.

As passionate as you and some people here seem about the issue, it is hard to believe you are letting Barak off the hook by claiming him "as a president who politically had to play the fence" - which president does not have this burden? The words Barak Obama used in this interview months before the election to define marriage are the same words used by myself and others in here over the years. What will his grandchildren think of him when they hear this?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:30 AM   #881
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
BVS, you and others in here have claimed that gay marriage is a basic human right. In this interview, Barak not only disagrees that gay marriage is a human right, he goes so far as to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and that it is a holy, ordained act before God ("God is involved")

He then proposes "civil unions" similar to the ones proposed by more conservative minds.

As passionate as you and some people here seem about the issue, it is hard to believe you are letting Barak off the hook by claiming him "as a president who politically had to play the fence" - which president does not have this burden? The words Barak Obama used in this interview months before the election to define marriage are the same words used by myself and others in here over the years. What will his grandchildren think of him when they hear this?

i disagree, strongly, with Obama on this issue. i also think that the Democrats, as they usually are, are being weak on this issue, and i think everyone is disappointed that Obama couldn't lend a hand at all in Maine. however, we are also aware of the political realities of now. what more do you want from us?


an example: do you think that George W Bush *really* wanted a constitutional amendment to discriminate against gay people? or do you think he did that for political reasons?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:32 AM   #882
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
It's just the unalienable rights of man listed by the Declaration of Independence, to which I hear conservatives on talk shows bring up every chance they get... why don't they believe them?
I thought you were asserting they were in the Constitution. My apologies.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:39 AM   #883
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
BVS, you and others in here have claimed that gay marriage is a basic human right. In this interview, Barak not only disagrees that gay marriage is a human right, he goes so far as to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and that it is a holy, ordained act before God ("God is involved")

He then proposes "civil unions" similar to the ones proposed by more conservative minds.

As passionate as you and some people here seem about the issue, it is hard to believe you are letting Barak off the hook by claiming him "as a president who politically had to play the fence" - which president does not have this burden? The words Barak Obama used in this interview months before the election to define marriage are the same words used by myself and others in here over the years. What will his grandchildren think of him when they hear this?
I haven't given him a pass, I think he's wrong.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:47 AM   #884
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what more do you want from us?
The same understanding and leeway offered to liberals that also define marriage as between one man and one woman. There is obviously more room for debate on the matter - and we shouldn't be seen as "homophobic" and "intolerant" any more than you would consider Obama and Democrats as "homophobic" and "intolerant" -

Quote:
an example: do you think that George W Bush *really* wanted a constitutional amendment to discriminate against gay people?
What do you mean by "discriminate against gay people?" - are you referring to the declaration that marriage is between one man and one woman - as Barak Obama does above? If so, do you consider Barak Obama as someone who wishes to "discriminate against gay people"?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:52 AM   #885
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i think Deenan is more biased.
As well as the ACLU?
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
 

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 11:30 AM.


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