equality blooms with spring

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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"?
 
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"?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

washington post interview said:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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" -

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"?
 
Sure it will. Just look at all those people back in the day who tried to keep the races pure. We all think they were the heroes. They were just trying to keep things the way the Bible intended. What was the harm?

Do you feel this way about everyone who thinks that marriage is between a man and a woman? Or is this warm and fuzzy reserved for conservatives that agree with liberals on this issue?
 
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"


do you think that Obama and the Democrats are as outwardly hostile to gay people as the Republicans?

i think that Obama holds a discriminatory belief against gay people. however, Obama also supported the CA court decision that allowed gays to marry in 2008, he supports full adoption rights, he supports full benefits for same-sex partners, he supports the repeal of DOMA, he supports the repeal of DADT. generally, Obama supports everything but the word "marriage" -- and it is my opinion that is for political reasons. so he's cowardly.

please contrast this to mainstream Republicans and their constituents. you will find a world of difference. certainly the Democrats are not perfect partners, and they take considerable gay money and give little in return. but when faced with a party that is eager for the social eradication of gay people, we have little choice but to go with Democrats.
 
Do you feel this way about everyone who thinks that marriage is between a man and a woman?


do you think it's possible, AEON, for you to retain this belief and to teach this belief to your children, while at the same time, gay people are allowed to enter into civil marriages in CA?

you've just referenced the ACLU -- so do you believe in civil rights only when it's advantageous for you?
 
the irony of a conservative referencing the ACLU isn't lost on me.

Agreed...

However, don't you find that "perhaps" you are being a little extreme when the even the ACLU is taking the side of the Catholic Church in this case?
 
However, don't you find that "perhaps" you are being a little extreme when the even the ACLU is taking the side of the Catholic Church in this case?


no, i don't.

but i don't think that you have accurately represented the ACLU's opinion. they aren't "taking the side of the Catholic Church." here's what Deneen, who i do think isn't a disinterested party, has to say:


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.


that's far milder than what the church is threatening to do.

if the church wishes to receive government money with which it then seeks to aid the poor, all the church has to do is to give all their employees the same benefits whether they are married to a person of the same gender or the opposite gender. that's it. is that really so awful? that they have to follow the rules?
 
And all three of you will be looked at with pity in a few decades as men who believed in discrimination.

You seriously think this is how Clinton and Obama will be remembered?

Two of them did it for political reasons. I have no idea why you do it.
My conscience.
 
You seriously think this is how Clinton and Obama will be remembered?
Among their many flaws, this will be a big one.

My conscience.
Then you may not be as honorable as you think you are. If you can honestly say your conscience allows you to exclude law-abiding adults from Constitutional rights, then your honor isn't as shiny as you want it to be.

That's what people will see and remember when gays and lesbians finally have full Constitutional rights.
 
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?

Could you at least spell the man's name correctly?

I think 99% of your government is wrong on this issue (for political reasons) and he's wrong along with them.

I would like to ask you to outline the negative effects that legalizing gay marriage has had in nations where it is legal today. How has Canadian, Dutch, Spanish etc. society suffered, tangibly or otherwise, from this legislative move?
 
Then you may not be as honorable as you think you are.

Probably not, but I try.

Do you feel it is more honorable to have an opinion based on conscience or one based on politics?

If you can honestly say your conscience allows you to exclude law-abiding adults from Constitutional rights, then your honor isn't as shiny as you want it to be.

As of this moment, gay marriage is not a Constitutional right.
That's what people will see and remember when gays and lesbians finally have full Constitutional rights.

Many believe they already do have full Constitutional rights...
 
your conscience tells you that you that any and all gay couples are inferior to any and all straight couples?

A little bit of a loaded question...

My conscience tells me that BaraCk :) Obama is correct - that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God.
 
no, i don't.

if the church wishes to receive government money with which it then seeks to aid the poor, all the church has to do is... [Go against a core teaching] that's it. is that really so awful? that they have to follow the rules?

The insert is mine. I hope you are beginning to see which organization is putting conditions on the funding. You just said it yourself - "all the church has to do is..."

That, by definition, is conditional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom