equality blooms with spring - Page 41

Pearl · 11-12-2009, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes

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.

AEON · 11-12-2009, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

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...

Irvine511 · 11-12-2009, 11:47 PM

Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin.

BVS · 11-12-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AEON

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

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...

AEON · 11-13-2009, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

phillyfan26 · 11-13-2009, 12:39 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.

AEON · 11-13-2009, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

coolian2 · 11-13-2009, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

?

AEON · 11-13-2009, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolian2

?

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...

INDY500 · 11-13-2009, 01:02 AM

Neither is a right to healthcare but whaddya gonna do.

AEON · 11-13-2009, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl

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 · 11-13-2009, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500

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?

Dreadsox · 11-13-2009, 01:46 AM

No NB did not.

AEON · 11-13-2009, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadsox

No NB did not.

While I don't know the details on why he left - I enjoyed his posts.

BVS · 11-13-2009, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AEON

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

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

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.

martha · 11-13-2009, 08:01 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?

BVS · 11-13-2009, 08:18 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...

INDY500 · 11-13-2009, 08:43 AM

anitram · 11-13-2009, 08:48 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.

BVS · 11-13-2009, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anitram

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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-12-2009, 11:47 PM	#803
Irvine511 Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the West Coast Posts: 34,456 Local Time: 12:29 PM	Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin.

11-13-2009, 12:39 AM	#806
phillyfan26 Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 30,343 Local Time: 11:29 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.

11-13-2009, 01:02 AM	#810
INDY500 Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: The American Resistance Posts: 4,754 Local Time: 10:29 AM	Neither is a right to healthcare but whaddya gonna do.

11-13-2009, 01:46 AM	#813
Dreadsox ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 10,885 Local Time: 11:29 AM	No NB did not.

11-13-2009, 08:01 AM	#816
martha Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place Posts: 42,562 Local Time: 09:29 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?

11-13-2009, 08:18 AM	#817
BVS Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: between my head and heart Posts: 41,232 Local Time: 11:29 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...

11-13-2009, 08:43 AM	#818
INDY500 Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: The American Resistance Posts: 4,754 Local Time: 10:29 AM

11-13-2009, 08:48 AM	#819
anitram Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: NY Posts: 18,918 Local Time: 12:29 PM	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.