Sore Losers
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
right to life
mebbe
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
liberty
'fraid not
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
CHILLING OUT
Like a fine wine?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
mebbe
Yeah, probably not.
Oakman wrote:
'fraid not
Yeah.
Oakman wrote:
Like a fine wine?
Like GETTING VERTICAL! :cool::cool::cool:
-
Rob Graham wrote:
you create an opportunity for inequity in terms of equal protection under the law, and where the opportunity exists the reality will as well
I don't think it necessarily would, but I guess I see the possibility. I don't see anything wrong with seperating them either. Which would amount to changing the text on a marriage license to say "Civil Union".
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
I don't think it necessarily would, but I guess I see the possibility.
It is not a mere possibility. It is a fact. There is a wide class of benefits only available to people who are married. There is also a Federal law (the Defence of Marriage Act) that prohibits the Federal Government and all federal agencies from extending any federal marriage-based benefits, privileges and rights to same-sex couples (this is true even if they are married). http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/06/doma/index.html[^]
John Carson
-
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
Churches or any other private organisation that wants to set itself up in the marriage-issuing business. While I agree that the state should only provide civil unions, I doubt that the proposal will work politically. The traditionalists who oppose gay marriage are also likely to be traditionalists in the sense of wanting state sanctioning of their marriage.
John Carson
-
Since when did "a man" mean something other than "1 man"? Now you embarrass yourself.
Rob Graham wrote:
Since when did "a man" mean something other than "1 man"? Now you embarrass yourself.
The covenant of marriage is always between 1 man and 1 woman. In the past, 1 man could have a covenant between himself and multiple women (I suppose one could still do this although illegally in this country), but the women were not married to the other women just because the man was married to them. Now you could probably site examples of other arrangements, but honestly this is the definition of marriage we have had for thousands of years. If standing up for my beliefs is embarrassing, then so be it. I will do my best to do what is right.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
-
Tim Craig wrote:
So equal rights and fair treatment just don't enter into their thinking?
The vocal activist minority that's causing the most problems? No. The quite majority of them who actually brought this issue up and gave the whackos their talking points? Yes.
Tim Craig wrote:
Something like 10% of the population woke up one morning and decided, I think I'll become homosexual to see how stirred up I can make the religious right?
Good God, don't start heading in that direction, we were having an actual discussion. Don't turn it into another SB fiasco where we assume the worst of every comment because the other guy HAS to be a complete whak-job. Give me the credit I deserve so I can do the same for you.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Yeah, I don't think violence is the right thing to do, but they're understandably really pissed off, and they've pretty much been all talk. I'm not sure that they'll actually burn down churches and whatever.
Vigilantism can cause innocent bystanders to get caught in the violence. Its wrong. Calling for the burning of churches is a serious threat (terrorism) against a 1st amendment right.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Since when did "a man" mean something other than "1 man"? Now you embarrass yourself.
The covenant of marriage is always between 1 man and 1 woman. In the past, 1 man could have a covenant between himself and multiple women (I suppose one could still do this although illegally in this country), but the women were not married to the other women just because the man was married to them. Now you could probably site examples of other arrangements, but honestly this is the definition of marriage we have had for thousands of years. If standing up for my beliefs is embarrassing, then so be it. I will do my best to do what is right.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
Jason Henderson wrote:
I will do my best to do what is right.
So you're for giving the same rights to everyone regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or sexual orientation?
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
Tim Craig wrote:
You're a horse's ass.
There you go, insulting horses, again.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I don't think it necessarily would, but I guess I see the possibility.
It is not a mere possibility. It is a fact. There is a wide class of benefits only available to people who are married. There is also a Federal law (the Defence of Marriage Act) that prohibits the Federal Government and all federal agencies from extending any federal marriage-based benefits, privileges and rights to same-sex couples (this is true even if they are married). http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/06/doma/index.html[^]
John Carson
Then DOMA should be the target. Prop 8 wouldn't have done them any good. I wasn't aware that DOMA explicitly denied federal rights, which is wrong. Off the legal issue and on to personal opinion (just because I feel like sharing)... Personally as a religious person, I feel that instead of trying to dictate their lives, that we have an obligation to tell them what we believe and then leave them alone. And I'm pretty sure at this point there are damn few who haven't already been told where Christianity stands on the issue. As a rational person with brain cells, I don't believe that they decided one day to be gay (OK there are a few people who do, but they aren't your normal case). Or event worse, that they caught it as if it were some airborne pathogen. I find it very hard to believe that you aren't born that way. There's no way I could imagine changing what turns my crank, there's no reason for me to believe that could happen for somebody else. In any event, it doesn't matter. It's not my job as a Christian to make sure everybody does what Christianity says is right. Which is all a very long way to say, I don't like it, but I'm not the one doing it, knock yourself out. Live and let live.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
right to life
mebbe
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
liberty
'fraid not
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
CHILLING OUT
Like a fine wine?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
I will do my best to do what is right.
So you're for giving the same rights to everyone regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or sexual orientation?
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
I think he made it clear that it was alright for anybody, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or sexual orientation to marry someone of the opposite sex. ;P Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Vigilantism can cause innocent bystanders to get caught in the violence. Its wrong. Calling for the burning of churches is a serious threat (terrorism) against a 1st amendment right.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
Religious fundamentalists seem to threaten violence more than any other group. They also burn down abortion clinics. And then when they systematically ruin the lives of homosexual people, they suddenly play innocent, as if they're the most persecuted group in history and the whole world's against them.
-
Then DOMA should be the target. Prop 8 wouldn't have done them any good. I wasn't aware that DOMA explicitly denied federal rights, which is wrong. Off the legal issue and on to personal opinion (just because I feel like sharing)... Personally as a religious person, I feel that instead of trying to dictate their lives, that we have an obligation to tell them what we believe and then leave them alone. And I'm pretty sure at this point there are damn few who haven't already been told where Christianity stands on the issue. As a rational person with brain cells, I don't believe that they decided one day to be gay (OK there are a few people who do, but they aren't your normal case). Or event worse, that they caught it as if it were some airborne pathogen. I find it very hard to believe that you aren't born that way. There's no way I could imagine changing what turns my crank, there's no reason for me to believe that could happen for somebody else. In any event, it doesn't matter. It's not my job as a Christian to make sure everybody does what Christianity says is right. Which is all a very long way to say, I don't like it, but I'm not the one doing it, knock yourself out. Live and let live.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Personally as a religious person, I feel that instead of trying to dictate their lives, that we have an obligation to tell them what we believe and then leave them alone. And I'm pretty sure at this point there are damn few who haven't already been told where Christianity stands on the issue. As a rational person with brain cells, I don't believe that they decided one day to be gay (OK there are a few people who do, but they aren't your normal case). Or event worse, that they caught it as if it were some airborne pathogen. I find it very hard to believe that you aren't born that way. There's no way I could imagine changing what turns my crank, there's no reason for me to believe that could happen for somebody else. In any event, it doesn't matter. It's not my job as a Christian to make sure everybody does what Christianity says is right.
Very reasonable of you. :)
John Carson
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
I will do my best to do what is right.
So you're for giving the same rights to everyone regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or sexual orientation?
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
Absolutely, but I don't think marriage applies to homosexuals by definition. Marriage has been defined as a covenant between a man and a woman since the beginning. If you change it's meaning, then how can it be called marriage anymore?
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
-
Religious fundamentalists seem to threaten violence more than any other group. They also burn down abortion clinics. And then when they systematically ruin the lives of homosexual people, they suddenly play innocent, as if they're the most persecuted group in history and the whole world's against them.
Threatening violence is against my religion as a Christian. REALLY, these people that claim to be Christians and do these things are Christians in name only. But, just because fundamentalists have done bad things before, does not give gays (or anyone else) the right to do violence against them and especially against innocent non-fundies.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
-
Absolutely, but I don't think marriage applies to homosexuals by definition. Marriage has been defined as a covenant between a man and a woman since the beginning. If you change it's meaning, then how can it be called marriage anymore?
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
I agree. But I don't know that what marriage means, requires a legal basis. Personally, I'd like to see some arrangement that affords them the rights that they are denied, and leaves marriage alone. Seems like that would be a win win. How to do that seems to be the big issue, and I think that's all a legal issue.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Threatening violence is against my religion as a Christian. REALLY, these people that claim to be Christians and do these things are Christians in name only. But, just because fundamentalists have done bad things before, does not give gays (or anyone else) the right to do violence against them and especially against innocent non-fundies.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
No, it doesn't, but it sure is hypocritical.
-
Absolutely, but I don't think marriage applies to homosexuals by definition. Marriage has been defined as a covenant between a man and a woman since the beginning. If you change it's meaning, then how can it be called marriage anymore?
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
Jason Henderson wrote:
Marriage has been defined as a covenant between a man and a woman since the beginning. If you change it's meaning, then how can it be called marriage anymore?
The definitions of a lot of things have changed over time as well as roles in society. Just because you personally don't like the change is no reason for change not to take place. Because it's always been is just as silly as all those claims of because the bible says so.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
I agree. But I don't know that what marriage means, requires a legal basis. Personally, I'd like to see some arrangement that affords them the rights that they are denied, and leaves marriage alone. Seems like that would be a win win. How to do that seems to be the big issue, and I think that's all a legal issue.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
The how has been explained to you several times by several people, get government out of marriage entirely and, if desired, replace it with civil unions. Which part don't you understand?
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
Oakman wrote:
Like a fine wine?
Only if it's white. :cool:
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!