equality blooms with spring - Page 41 - 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 11-12-2009, 10:01 PM   #801
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,741
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post

i just don't see why tolerance is so difficult. it's not like they're saying not only do you have to employ and give benefits to homosexuals, but you also have to allow them to have sex by the holy water. i'm a christian, but when i read things like this, it makes me sad to see such intolerance. whatever happened to love thy neighbour as thyself? i mean, if you think homosexuality is wrong and immoral, that's your own opinion. but that's got nothing to do with working for a church, or providing social services to those in need.
My mind is as boggled as Irvine's. Jesus said, "he who is without sin, cast the first stone," among other things about loving thy neighbor. If the Church does this, they would lose quite a few parishoners I am sure. I know I would walk out.

And if the Church does want homosexuals to change (if its possible), they got to be more compassionate rather than hostile. Hostility never works when confronting someone.
__________________

Pearl is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 10:41 PM   #802
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
But I think if there are 16 year olds who can actually prove financial independence then they should have that right.
Please correct me I am misrepresenting your logic. You seem to be saying...

"IF there is a possible way to truly make a consenting relationship, and find a legal way to create an equal relationship"

and IF 16 year olds can prove financial independence

THEN, these 16 years olds could - in theory - enter into a marriage of three or more. Is this correct?

Also, it seems you are okay - in some circumstances - with allowing the states to grant or deny this fundamental "human right" of marriage when they deem appropriate. Is this also correct?

Quote:
But that's another thread. AEON between you and I we could do spin off threads all night long
very true...
__________________

AEON is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 10:47 PM   #803
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 10:51 PM   #804
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Please correct me I am misrepresenting your logic. You seem to be saying...

"IF there is a possible way to truly make a consenting relationship, and find a legal way to create an equal relationship"

and IF 16 year olds can prove financial independence

THEN, these 16 years olds could - in theory - enter into a marriage of three or more. Is this correct?
I'm saying the variance between 16 and 18 is a very gray area, there are a few 16 year olds that are mature enough, and if they have somehow found a way to be financially independent and they choose to marry right now under this current definition why stop them?

IF, and that's a big IF because I don't think it's possible to create a truly consentual polygamous marriage then why deny it if we hold ourselves to be the freest country in the world?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Also, it seems you are okay - in some circumstances - with allowing the states to grant or deny this fundamental "human right" of marriage when they deem appropriate. Is this also correct?
I'm not quite sure where you gather this from...
BVS is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 11:29 PM   #805
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post


I'm not quite sure where you gather this from...
You said marriage is a fundamental human right, but you also agreed (I think) that states can determine the age when to grant this right (16,18...whatever). It seems to follow that you or okay with allowing states to determine when, who, and how human rights are granted.

Usually, fundamental human rights, from my understanding, are something government can neither grant nor deny (only protect). So you are either claiming that marriage is not necessary a human right, or that human rights CAN be granted or denied by the government.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 11:39 PM   #806
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:46 AM
I'm sorry, but does any of this have anything to do with denying homosexuals the right to marry? Because to me it looks like a bunch of semantics meant to distract from the real issue, not to mention a desperate attempt to grasp at anything to prove those gays should just stay away from your marriage.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 11:45 PM   #807
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

i think this gets to the heart of some of the problems. what will happen when same-sex marriage is legal is that it will be illegal to discriminate against gay people if you are an organization that takes public money. gay people will be as protected as blacks, asians, jews, the handicapped, etc. i guess for some, that's a bad thing?

it boggles the mind.
This is why I am big supporter of the Separation of Church and State concept (it's not a law, it's never mentioned in the Constitution - but it is still a great concept).

The reason I support it is NOT because I fear the church's influence on the state - no, I fear the state's influence on the church.

It seems wrong the city would attach strings to organizations wishing to feed the poor.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 11:51 PM   #808
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,934
Local Time: 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
This is why I am big supporter of the Separation of Church and State concept (it not a law, it is never mentioned in the Constitution - but it is still a great concept).
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
?
coolian2 is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 11:56 PM   #809
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
?
When is the last time anyone called for congress to officially establish a religion?

Funny enough, this does not prohibit the state congress from establishing a state religion. But I agree, that wouldn't be a good idea.

Also, the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not there...
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 12:02 AM   #810
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:46 AM
Neither is a right to healthcare but whaddya gonna do.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 12:21 AM   #811
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
My mind is as boggled as Irvine's. Jesus said, "he who is without sin, cast the first stone," .
Are you casting stones at those casting stones?
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 12:22 AM   #812
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Neither is a right to healthcare but whaddya gonna do.
And this is what I missed most about this place...

Did NB Crusader ever come back here?
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 12:46 AM   #813
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 05:46 AM
No NB did not.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 01:15 AM   #814
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
No NB did not.
While I don't know the details on why he left - I enjoyed his posts.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 06:47 AM   #815
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
You said marriage is a fundamental human right, but you also agreed (I think) that states can determine the age when to grant this right (16,18...whatever). It seems to follow that you or okay with allowing states to determine when, who, and how human rights are granted.

Usually, fundamental human rights, from my understanding, are something government can neither grant nor deny (only protect). So you are either claiming that marriage is not necessary a human right, or that human rights CAN be granted or denied by the government.
This is quite a bit of stretch from "I haven't given it much thought" and "it's arbitrary but needed". And even if I did say that the state can determine the "when" I said nothing about the who and how.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
The reason I support it is NOT because I fear the church's influence on the state - no, I fear the state's influence on the church.
I find this fear to be irrational. I do not support the state or federal government forcing churches to hold gay marriages if they don't believe in them. The church has the right to deny any couple not to get married in their church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Neither is a right to healthcare but whaddya gonna do.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

For many in order to have life, they need healthcare, they pretty much go hand in hand.
BVS is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 07:01 AM   #816
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:46 AM


Some chiropractor somewhere is making wheelbarrows full of money on the folks who still do all the backflips and tumbles just to disallow two guys who love each other more than anything to marry. I don't know why it's so damn hard to do. We always ending talking up about children getting married instead of consenting adults. What the hell?
martha is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 07:18 AM   #817
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:46 AM
The evolution of the argument against gay marriage is a funny one.

The majority of posters in here and conservatives alike start out with the Bible argument, once you "convince" them the Bible doesn't have any place in making secular law they turn to the slippery slope argument.

The slippery slope argument is that if you allow two women to marry then my neighbor is going to want to marry a goat. As soon as that argument is shattered, which takes all of one sentence then they move on to the dictionary argument.

The dictionary argument is, well this is the definition, this is what the dictionary says, I'm just trying to uphold the traditional definition. Then when you prove that definitions have changed and evolved over the years they call you "weeslely".

At this point they get frustrated and they return to one of the previous arguments hoping they find something they missed before. So I guess we're now back to men who want to marry goats...
BVS is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 07:43 AM   #818
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:46 AM
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 07:48 AM   #819
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Honestly the arguments against legalizing gay marriage are unproductive wastes of time because the people putting them forward must realize at this point (short of being really stupid) that the enemy they are up against is time, that time waits for no man, and that thanks to the progressivism of the younger generation, this "fight" has already been lost.

Someday their grandchildren will wonder who they were.
anitram is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 07:52 AM   #820
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Honestly the arguments against legalizing gay marriage are unproductive wastes of time because the people putting them forward must realize at this point (short of being really stupid) that the enemy they are up against is time, that time waits for no man, and that thanks to the progressivism of the younger generation, this "fight" has already been lost.

Someday their grandchildren will wonder who they were.
__________________

BVS 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 05:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×