Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 47 - 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 01-06-2014, 10:44 PM   #691
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
This is the first time in history the definition of marriage has been changed.
So you haven't read the Bible? Figures...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-07-2014, 02:10 AM   #692
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
This is the first time in history the definition of marriage has been changed.
this is just wrong, sorry. in addition to the polygamy people have mentioned, interracial marriages used to be illegal in the states. so no, in recent decades, marriage has been redefined as between a man and woman of any race, not just a man and woman of the same race.

and regarding the bakery, i basically agree with what most have said: the bakery absolutely should legally be required to provide service to all clients. refusal to do so is discrimination, as the ruling judge said. i wouldn't want to give money to someone who i know disapproves of my marriage and who i had to legally force into baking my cake. this couple don't live in a small town. i'm sure this is more about proving a point of course. i just hope any negative publicity overrides any positive publicity.
__________________

__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 01-07-2014, 09:50 AM   #693
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 09:17 PM
Wasn't marriage between old men and underage girls allowed at some point as well? So the definition must've changed as that is outlawed now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 01-07-2014, 10:48 AM   #694
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
Wasn't marriage between old men and underage girls allowed at some point as well? So the definition must've changed as that is outlawed now.

Loretta Lynn got married at 14.

Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin.



he has been married 7 times.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-07-2014, 10:53 AM   #695
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 09:17 PM
Wait what? It's not actually outlawed in the United States?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 01-07-2014, 10:55 AM   #696
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
Wait what? It's not actually outlawed in the United States?


it is now. they changed the definition of marriage from what it was in the 1950s when grown men could marry children, despite the fact that this is true traditional marriage (when life was nasty, brutish, and short, as it has been for much of human history, got to get those girls pregnant ASAP so the species can survive).

age of consent varies from state to state, the youngest ages of consent are usually in the most conservative, religious states.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-07-2014, 10:58 AM   #697
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 09:17 PM
Phew, lol that would've been a pretty big shock to me.

I think age of consent is either 16 or 18 here, but I don't think you're allowed to actually get married before 18. A sexual relationship between a person age 16 or over can be legal if the parents agree with it. THough if it's between a 16 and an 18 year old it usually isn't a problem. 16 and 60 though....
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 01-07-2014, 01:36 PM   #698
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,892
Local Time: 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
Phew, lol that would've been a pretty big shock to me.

I think age of consent is either 16 or 18 here, but I don't think you're allowed to actually get married before 18. A sexual relationship between a person age 16 or over can be legal if the parents agree with it. THough if it's between a 16 and an 18 year old it usually isn't a problem. 16 and 60 though....
Our law in PA is, I believe, that the age of consent is 18 unless both parties are underage, in which case it is 16. Though if the person is 16 or 17 engaging with an adult (18+), I think it's a misdemeanor unless you're a teacher or priest (I believe the phrasing is "in a position of power").
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 01-07-2014, 07:58 PM   #699
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

Again, Iron Horse, I ask you: give me a list of all the bad things that have happened since SSM became legal in Massachusetts 10 years ago.
Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.

That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.

Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms Now Required in MA by Commissioner - Massachusetts Family Institute
Quote:
February 15, 2013
Massachusetts Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester informed grade K-12 school principals that they must allow boys and girls of any age who self-identify as transgender to use the public school bathroom and locker room of their choosing—making it the first time in state history that boys would be allowed in girls bathrooms (and vice versa) at the student’s will.
The eleven page, single-spaced policy document, quietly implemented at the start of a three-day weekend and school vacation week, lays out a laundry list of far-reaching new rules related to ‘gender identity’ in public schools. Boys who ‘identify’ themselves as girls can now use the girls’ “restroom, locker room, and changing facility,” and vice versa. Principals are told to make it clear that students can use whatever restroom “corresponds to the student’s gender identity.” According to the document, “discomfort [ of the rest of the student body or from parents ] is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.”

The new policy also impacts locker rooms and interscholastic athletics. All school teams will now essentially become coed, as students can play on whichever team they feel matches their gender identity. The policy even cites an example of a male student participating, as a girl, on an all-girls’ cheerleading squad.

Citing the specific language of the policy, Andrew Beckwith, attorney for Massachusetts Family Institute, warned that the definition of transgender “is extremely broad.” “If a male student tells his teacher he feels like a girl on the inside, the school has to treat him in every way as if he actually is a girl. School personnel may be forbidden from informing the parents of their child’s gender decisions, and students can even decide to be one gender at home and another at school.” Beckwith added that this requirement to ignore a basic truth of anatomy even extends to other students, as the policy states that referring to a transgendered student by their birth name or sex “should not be tolerated and can be grounds for student discipline.”
And of course who can forget this from Massachusetts two years ago:

Quote:
“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” Boston mayor Menino told the Boston Herald on Thursday. “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against the population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion. That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”
Maybe you're cool with boys in girl's locker-rooms and totalitarian mayors "banning" national companies but some of us have yet to evolve on those issues. And they are a direct result of who is at the vanguard of the SSM movement.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-07-2014, 07:59 PM   #700
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: 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
he has been married 7 sacred times.
Fixed.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 01-07-2014, 08:25 PM   #701
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post

and regarding the bakery, I basically agree with what most have said: the bakery absolutely should legally be required to provide service to all clients. refusal to do so is discrimination, as the ruling judge said.
Reading the article would illuminate that he was not, and had not, discriminated against gays (he would gladly provide cakes for their birthdays or other celebrations) only their marriage cake was at issue because of his religious beliefs. Furthermore SSM is not even legal in Colorado.

And if you're so enamored with these types of laws should a baker who is Jewish be forced to provide cakes for a Nazi skinhead convention? Should clergy be required to perform SSM's if requested?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-07-2014, 09:25 PM   #702
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,892
Local Time: 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.

That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.

Maybe you're cool with boys in girl's locker-rooms and totalitarian mayors "banning" national companies but some of us have yet to evolve on those issues. And they are a direct result of who is at the vanguard of the SSM movement.
Oh my God. What are you even talking about?

This agenda is made up. Period. None of the rest of your post even remotely points to an agenda. You have no argument. At all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Reading the article would illuminate that he was not, and had not, discriminated against gays (he would gladly provide cakes for their birthdays or other celebrations) only their marriage cake was at issue because of his religious beliefs. Furthermore SSM is not even legal in Colorado.
"He had not discriminated against gays, except for when he discriminated against gays."
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
And if you're so enamored with these types of laws should a baker who is Jewish be forced to provide cakes for a Nazi skinhead convention? Should clergy be required to perform SSM's if requested?
How is that the same thing? Nazism is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Jesus Christ.

These are two horrific posts when it comes to, you know, logic.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 01-07-2014, 09:49 PM   #703
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,340
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post

How is that the same thing? Nazism is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Jesus Christ.
What about if a Jewish man opened a kosher restaurant and refused to serve pork or anything else unfit for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws? Bad business decision, yes, but he wants to live by his code of right and wrong. Should the government and/or a judge force him to serve it against his religious beliefs? Or should the patron that insists on eating pork just go across the road to the Famous Dave's order some delicious baby back ribs?
__________________
ImOuttaControl is online now  
Old 01-07-2014, 09:51 PM   #704
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,892
Local Time: 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl View Post
What about if a Jewish man opened a kosher restaurant and refused to serve pork or anything else unfit for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws? Bad business decision, yes, but he wants to live by his code of right and wrong. Should the government and/or a judge force him to serve it against his religious beliefs? Or should the patron that insists on eating pork just go across the road to the Famous Dave's order some delicious baby back ribs?
What are you talking about? The government didn't force anyone to serve anything they don't already serve. The government is just saying you can't pick and choose your customers based on discrimination.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 01-07-2014, 10:01 PM   #705
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,340
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
What are you talking about? The government didn't force anyone to serve anything they don't already serve. The government is just saying you can't pick and choose your customers based on discrimination.
I know the 1st Amendment is a pretty big deal, and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution declares that in cases when federal and state law clash, the Constitution always is supreme. I have a feeling that this case will end up before the Supreme Court at some point.
__________________

__________________
ImOuttaControl is online now  
 

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 03:17 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