I must be slipping
-
Zac Howland wrote:
In all honesty, the government shouldn't be regulating marriage to begin with.
I agree - marriage is the territory of the church. I don't think the government has the right to decide for the church what does and does not constitute marriage. Once you redefine marriage like that, what's to stop a government from defining more aspects of a religion?
Prime your row 'cause you'll get no pay for standin' there pickin' at your nose all day.
Well in that case, there should be no tax rammifications of marriage and no shared jobs benefits, etc.
Matt Gerrans
-
liona wrote:
So what do you define as the true role of marriage?
I already said... It creates a indissolvable bond between man and woman such that a stable home in which children can be conceived and raised. Adoption (which you're naming as justification for same-sex marriage) isn't the rule of marriage, but rather a method to rescue victims of a marriageless relationship such that they may have the same change in life as legitimate children.
liona wrote:
By the underlying comments in your responses it seems that you have a problem with gays that I can't and won't understand. Its sad.
I have an underlying objection to homosexuality (which I consider deviant behavior), but not homosexuals (who I view as victims of temptation). I don't think gays are inherently bad, but I certainly do object to their behavior. My underlying comments are geared towards the fact that marriage is a defined institution with a defined role and that by expanding its definition, you lessen it's significance. It is something that should be protected and advocated in its traditional form. If you begin to call everything a "lion", calling a lion a lion no longer has any significance.
I have an underlying objection to homosexuality (which I consider deviant behavior), but not homosexuals (who I view as victims of temptation). I don't think gays are inherently bad, but I certainly do object to their behavior. I have dealt with people like you all my life and you are a racist in my eyes. The people that share your views tend to spew religious comments on how homosexuality is forbidden. I don't know why you think it is so deviant but I am sure it relates to religion. sure homosexuals are a minority but that doesn't count for deviant behaviour. Mostly I think that the people that have issues with homosexuality have underlying issues about themself. IMO.
-
Zac Howland wrote:
You have a belief that God does not exist. That is a belief, just like the one saying that He does exist.
I recommend that you read the first chapter of "Atheism - A Case Against God" by George H. Smith (by all means, read the entire book, it's well written). In short terms - atheism isn't belief. It's the absence of belief. The book puts it far more eloquently than I could ever hope to achieve.
-- When you see the robot, drink!
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I recommend that you read the first chapter of "Atheism - A Case Against God" by George H. Smith (by all means, read the entire book, it's well written). In short terms - atheism isn't belief. It's the absence of belief. The book puts it far more eloquently than I could ever hope to achieve.
I've skimmed the book, though I disagree with him on that. Agnosticism is absense of belief. Atheism is a disbelief (which is essentially a belief in the inverse). A coworker (who calls himself an atheist mind you) explained it well this way:
bool isGod = true; Boolean Religious = isGod; Boolean Atheist = !isGod; Boolean Agnostic = null;If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Zac Howland wrote:
That is fine. Having a contract that binds the assets of 2 people (which is essentially what a marriage license does in effect) is all well and good. Don't have a dedicated section of law that describes who can and cannot enter such a contract ... and don't give it special status over any other contract.
So then the blind should be entitled to driver's licenses and ex-cons should be permitted concealed weapons permits?
Red Stateler wrote:
So then the blind should be entitled to driver's licenses
That gets into another area of law that I have serious objections with and will easily take the thread on a completely different topic. Lets just say that I don't think driver's licenses should be issued.
Red Stateler wrote:
ex-cons should be permitted concealed weapons permits?
That is very different. Ex-cons (assuming you mean felons since misdemeanors in most states won't prohibit a CW permit) have given up their rights (most of them) by violating the law to an extreme point.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac