gay marraige/gay rights
I was always of the opinion that marriage was a church, sacramental thing. As such, they shouldn't let homosexuals get married. But under the law, you get certain rights with marriage, and they shouldn't be treated differently, so I thought allowing civil unions were the right route. But I think DOMA created a problem, and maybe the only way to fight back was to call a civil union a marriage. So I think DOMA, a bigoted law designed to prevent gay marriage, actually created it.
Quote: Beethoven9thI think it's just funny how some liberals get their underwear all ruffled over Uganda, yet they don't give a crap about Islamic terrorists who want to kill us.
You are the king of the false equivalence.
Quote: Beethoven9thI don't believe anyone in this thread ever mentioned using Uganda as a standard. I think it's just funny how some liberals get their underwear all ruffled over Uganda, yet they don't give a crap about Islamic terrorists who want to kill us.
then whats the point of bringing up a poor, corrumpt backwards republic like Uganda
ok we are better than them in human rights
i will pat myself on the back
they are indeed a proper measrung stick
Nope, not at all.Quote: ams288You are the king of the false equivalence.
To point out the strange, strange priorities of liberals.Quote: LarrySthen whats the point of bringing up a poor, corrumpt backwards republic like Uganda
Uganda doesn't allow homosexuality just as some gambling sites don't allow gay discussions. I guess some would say that we WOV members are doubly blessed.
There are many churches that sanctify gay marriages. Just because one church doesn't sanctify all marriages doesn't mean that the country gives dominion over marriage to that church alone. As a matter of fact, you can't give any church superior consideration when enacting laws or policy. It violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.Quote: SonuvabishI was always of the opinion that marriage was a church, sacramental thing. As such, they shouldn't let homosexuals get married.
Quote: s2dbakerThere are many churches that sanctify gay marriages. Just because one church doesn't sanctify all marriages doesn't mean that the country gives dominion over marriage to that church alone. As a matter of fact, you can't give any church superior consideration when enacting laws or policy. It violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.
That, and marriage has been in existence for a very long, long time. Since well before the first words on the Bible were written, and in every imaginable culture in existence. To claim it as a Christian-exclusive institution is plain factually wrong.
Further, before even civil unions were considered, some religious institutions, including Christian ones, performed religious same-sex marriages at their discretion.
In the past Church and State were more intertwined. For a very long time governments did not concern themselves with a Civil registry. That is, they did not records births, marriages and deaths. In Europe churches did that. This changed around the time of the Elightenment. Now governments issue birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates. These things have long since been matters of civil and common law, not canon law. The church today, in most Western countries, lacks any legal authority.
People can oppose same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. But their objections lack any civil, legal basis.
Quote: s2dbakerThere are many churches that sanctify gay marriages. Just because one church doesn't sanctify all marriages doesn't mean that the country gives dominion over marriage to that church alone. As a matter of fact, you can't give any church superior consideration when enacting laws or policy. It violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.
That doesn't establish a religion, there are no taxes or subsidies to support religious expression or forbid religious practice. Many denominations do not recognize gay marriage, and every denomination recognizes traditional marriage. By your logic, it violates the Establishment Clause not to recognize any marriage by any church--I could create a church, recognize marriage between two inanimate objects. The best argument that it is illegal to ban same-sex marriage is that it violates the 9th and 14th Amendments as was the argument against the abortion ban.
Okay, now let's have a look at what you saidQuote: SonuvabishThat doesn't establish a religion, there are no taxes or subsidies to support religious expression or forbid religious practice. Many denominations do not recognize gay marriage, and every denomination recognizes traditional marriage. By your logic, it violates the Establishment Clause not to recognize any marriage by any church--I could create a church, recognize marriage between two inanimate objects. The best argument that it is illegal to ban same-sex marriage is that it violates the 9th and 14th Amendments as was the argument against the abortion ban.
I'm fairly certain that when you said "As such, they shouldn't let homosexuals get married" the "they" in that statement is meant to be some government agency thereby establishing a hierarchy of religion to be enforced by the government.Quote: SonuvabishI was always of the opinion that marriage was a church, sacramental thing. As such, they shouldn't let homosexuals get married.
By my logic, it violates the establishment clause to base a definition of marriage upon a single church's sanctification or lack thereof. Your religion is of course free to embrace your lawnmower/mailbox marriages but that doesn't mean that the government is doing anything wrong by excluding them since they are not a class of people with immutable characteristics. Excluding marriages based on what a church deems inappropriate if it discriminates against a class of people is wrong and the government has no right to do so as you've pointed out, by the ninth and fourteenth amendments.
Quote: s2dbakerOkay, now let's have a look at what you saidI'm fairly certain that when you said "As such, they shouldn't let homosexuals get married" the "they" in that statement is meant to be some government agency thereby establishing a hierarchy of religion to be enforced by the government.
By my logic, it violates the establishment clause to base a definition of marriage upon a single church's sanctification or lack thereof. Your religion is of course free to embrace your lawnmower/mailbox marriages but that doesn't mean that the government is doing anything wrong by excluding them since they are not a class of people with immutable characteristics. Excluding marriages based on what a church deems inappropriate if it discriminates against a class of people is wrong and the government has no right to do so as you've pointed out, by the ninth and fourteenth amendments.
Then how come the gays didn't stand up & support polygamists when polygamy was outlawed???
Quote: Beethoven9thThen how come the gays didn't stand up & support polygamists when polygamy was outlawed???
What a stupid, stupid question.
When was polygamy outlawed? Like the 19th century? Hmmmm... then how come the gays didn't stand up and support them back then?
Quote: Beethoven9thThen how come the gays didn't stand up & support polygamists when polygamy was outlawed???
True. The LGBT community was silent when the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act passed in 1862 and the Edmunds-Tucker Act passed in 1887. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but in those days the punishment for homosexuality was death.
Years earlier, Thomas Jefferson had tried to soften the punishment for homosexuality in Virginia's legislature in 1779. Jefferson wanted castration, not death. But the Virginia legislature didn't want castrated homosexuals. The Virginia legislature wanted dead homosexuals. Jefferson's bill failed.
And an even stupider, stupider answer. (See below)Quote: ams288What a stupid, stupid question.
When was polygamy outlawed? Like the 19th century? Hmmmm... then how come the gays didn't stand up and support them back then?
Well, the gays have had well over 100 years now to speak out against it, but they haven't. Shows you how much they really care about equality.Quote: renoTrue. The LGBT community was silent when the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act passed in 1862 and the Edmunds-Tucker Act passed in 1887. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but in those days the punishment for homosexuality was death.
And if they are in favor of equality, shouldn't they also push for polyandry as well?
We just want consistency, that's all. Most gay marriage supporters don't.Quote: NareedWhat I'd like to know is if conservatives want polygamy so much, why aren't they agitating for it?
Quote: Beethoven9thWe just want consistency, that's all. Most gay marriage supporters don't.
Consistency how?
Quote: ams288Consistency how?
Well, I can't speak for all conservatives, but some might have actually read Descartes. Now, the man's ideas where not that good, but he did underatand that 1) advocating for one idea or issue does not mean opposition to all other ideas or issues, and 2) If one waits untill all of everyone's ducks are in a row before making a move, one will most likely never move (of course he stated it differently).
But let's apply the conservatives' own standards to their position:
If you oppose abortion, what are you doing to insure free access to birth control by all sexuallya ctive people? What are you doing concerning easing adoption laws to amke adoptions easier and safer? What are you doing towards massive government spending programs on child welfare? If despite being against abortion you favor the death penalty, what steps are you taking to insure only such people whoa re actually guilty of a capital crime get capital punishment? Or do you think preventing the "deaths of innocents" only applies to fetuses?
But of course such questions wouldn't be fair. If you dont' believe me, ask a conservative.
For example, in the old testiment, its not proper to eat shellfish or pork. That has been traced back to disease that was contracted when eating undercooked members of those foodgroups. Ok so it protected society.
Maybe in a world with not alot of people, the bible could prohibit "spilling seed"....meaning...no birth control...sex was to have children. So oboviously homosexuals could not bear children....so they were religiously outlawed.
In this century, we know how to safely eat shellfish and pork. We have a world over run with people...billions .....all of a sudden birth control doesnt look so bad, and homosexuals hold down the population explosion (yes in rare occassions there is artificial insemination). The rise in Aids.....in part due to promiscuity in the gay community......why not also protect socety by encouraging monogomy in the gay community. The less HIV positive people...the less contaminated our blood supply gets(although there are checks...people still do get HIV positive from blood transfusions)
So if things in the bible can become "old" or "outdated" based on changes in the world we live in.....why couldnt gay marriage be one of those things.
Secondly
As I asked before....what is the downside to your life and the lives of your children and grandchildren if gays could get married....other than being an affront to your religion......a religion whose directives and values, most people use as a buffet and pick and choose what they would be convenient for them to follow.
Quote: LarrySAs I asked before....what is the downside to your life and the lives of your children and grandchildren if gays could get marriedy....other than being an affront to your religion......a religion whose directives and values, most people use as a buffet and pick and choose what they would be convenient for them to follow.
They will have no good response to that.... which is why they try to muddy the water and bring up polygamy. lol
Quote: ams288They will have no good response to that.... which is why they try to muddy the water and bring up polygamy. lol
But they have plenty of bad responses, alas. And we'll have to hear them all again several times over before they realize that accepting equality will only hurt their prejudices.
Quote: Beethoven9thWe just want consistency, that's all. Most gay marriage supporters don't.
It must bother you tremendously that The Old Testament is so inconsistent: the Old Testament is ok with polygamy while simultaneously condemns homosexuality to the depths of hell.
You must have a short memory since you already forgot our last discussion less than 2 hours ago.Quote: ams288Consistency how?
I don't care about the Old Testament since I'm not religious.Quote: renoIt must bother you tremendously that The Old Testament is so inconsistent: the Old Testament is ok with polygamy while simultaneously condemns homosexuality to the depths of hell.
The same downside that the gays feel when they vigorously argue against polygamy.Quote: LarrySAs I asked before....what is the downside to your life and the lives of your children and grandchildren if gays could get married...
Quote: ams288Quote: LarrySAs I asked before....what is the downside to your life and the lives of your children and grandchildren if gays could get marriedy....other than being an affront to your religion......a religion whose directives and values, most people use as a buffet and pick and choose what they would be convenient for them to follow.
They will have no good response to that.... which is why they try to muddy the water and bring up polygamy. lol
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: LarrySAs I asked before....what is the downside to your life and the lives of your children and grandchildren if gays could get married...
The same downside that the gays feel when they vigorously argue against polygamy.
Damn I was right on the money with that one. lmao
That's very good, at least you acknowledge your own hypocrisy on these issues. (The gays never have a good response to the "hypocrisy" question)Quote: ams288Damn I was right on the money with that one. lmao
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's very good, at least you acknowledge your own hypocrisy on these issues.
I honestly have no clue what you're talking about.
Quote: ams288I honestly have no clue what you're talking about.
Yeah, that's pretty darn obvious...lol
Quote: Beethoven9thYeah, that's pretty darn obvious...lol
So explain yourself....
I would love to know what makes me a hypocrite on these issues.
Please tell me you're joking? *facepalm*Quote: ams288I would love to know what makes me a hypocrite on these issues.
I can't believe so many gays whine & whine & whine about discrimination, yet they have no problem discriminating against polygamists. What an embarrassment.
Quote: Beethoven9thPlease tell me you're joking? *facepalm*
I AM 100% SERIOUS!
You called me a hypocrite. You need to back yourself up with evidence, dude.
Quote: ams288I AM 100% SERIOUS!
You called me a hypocrite. You need to back yourself up with evidence, dude.
If I may offer some unsolicited advice, don't keep arguing with someone who uses "lol" as part of his arguemnt. Once anyone does that, except as an exclamation, they cannot be taken seriously.
Quote: NareedIf I may offer some unsolicited advice, don't keep arguing with someone who uses "lol" as part of his arguemnt. Once anyone does that, except as an exclamation, they cannot be taken seriously.
I just don't like being called a hypocrite for reasons that only exist in his confused mind.
I already did. Too bad you edited that part out.Quote: ams288You called me a hypocrite. You need to back yourself up with evidence, dude.
Um, LOL is not an argument. It stands for "laughing out loud", so it's used to denote that someone is laughing.Quote: NareedIf I may offer some unsolicited advice, don't keep arguing with someone who uses "lol" as part of his arguemnt. Once anyone does that, except as an exclamation, they cannot be taken seriously.
Quote: Beethoven9thI already did. Too bad you edited that part out..
What did I edit out?!?!
Uh, I know it may be difficult, but just scroll back up.Quote: ams288What did I edit out?!?!
Quote: Beethoven9thUh, I know it may be difficult, but just scroll back up.
Ohhh I didn't think there was any possible chance you were referring to this:
Quote: Beethoven9thI can't believe so many gays whine & whine & whine about discrimination, yet they have no problem discriminating against polygamists. What an embarrassment.
Because now you're gonna have to show me where I've whined and whined and whined about gay discrimination, and also where I've discriminated against polygamists.
Cause if you can't show me where I've done that (and I can guarantee I've never done it on these boards), you're just a common lowlife who puts words in other people's mouths.
Quote: ams288Ohhh I didn't think there was any possible chance you were referring to this:
Because now you're gonna have to show me where I've whined and whined and whined about gay discrimination, and also where I've discriminated against polygamists.
Cause if you can't show me where I've done that (and I can guarantee I've never done it on these boards), you're just a common lowlife who puts words in other people's mouths.
Ohhh then when I was talking about "hypocrites", I must not have been talking about you. So I'm not quite sure why you're oh so offended. (You guys are always itching to get offended over something though. Whatevs.)
Quote: Beethoven9thOhhh then when I was talking about "hypocrites", I must not have been talking about you. Don't know why you're so offended. You guys are always itching to get offended over something. Whatever.
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's very good, at least you acknowledge your own hypocrisy on these issues
I win.
No, actually you lose. I wrote that after YOU acted offended when I talked about hypocrites. And at one point, you even acknowledged hypocrisy (re: what I was referring to in my quote). Looks like you're very confused here.Quote: ams288I win.Quote: Beethoven9thThat's very good, at least you acknowledge your own hypocrisy on these issues
Anyway, more intellectual dishonesty, which is what I should have expected.
BTW, please keep up the personal attacks. I'd love to see your name in dark red...lolQuote: ams288Cause if you can't show me where I've done that (and I can guarantee I've never done it on these boards), you're just a common lowlife who puts words in other people's mouths.
Quote: Beethoven9thBTW, please keep up the personal attacks. I'd love to see your name in dark red...lolQuote: ams288Cause if you can't show me where I've done that (and I can guarantee I've never done it on these boards), you're just a common lowlife who puts words in other people's mouths.
It's justified to call a person a lowlife when they've called you a hypocrite based on nothing but their sad imagination.
Quote: Beethoven9thNo, actually you lose. I wrote that after YOU acted offended when I talked about hypocrites.Quote: ams288I win.Quote: Beethoven9thThat's very good, at least you acknowledge your own hypocrisy on these issues
Also, this is a flat out lie.
Please quote the post of mine where I acted offended at you talking about hypocrites that you say came BEFORE this one:
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's very good, at least you acknowledge your own hypocrisy on these issues
YOU, sir, are the most intellectually dishonest person on this board.
If I describe a hypocrite, and you respond to me acting offended, then what does that mean, pray tell?Quote: ams288It's justified to call a person a lowlife when they've called you a hypocrite based on nothing but their sad imagination.
Do you not read my previous posts? Or your OWN previous posts????Quote: ams288Also, this is a flat out lie.
Please quote the post of mine where I acted offended at you talking about hypocrites that you say came BEFORE this one:
Coming from you, that most definitely means I am not. lolQuote: ams288YOU, sir, are the most intellectually dishonest person on this board.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou must have a short memory since you already forgot our last discussion less than 2 hours ago.
I don't care about the Old Testament since I'm not religious.
The same downside that the gays feel when they vigorously argue against polygamy.
I am not familiar with the nationwide gay platform on polygamy.
Is there some gay group of some significance that preaches some anti polygamy platform?
Or are there just gays that are individually against it like there are heterosexuals and asexuals that are against it.
you make it sound like the gay community is single handedly holding back the legalization of polygamy
If a gay person argues that any one individual "of age" consenting individual should be able to marry another one "of age" consenting individual...with only one marriage at a time....then it wouldnt be hypocracy to be against multiple partnered marriage in any other combination....1 man/5 women/ or 3 women/4 men....whatever the combo.....it doesnt restrict someone from being "pro",,,,ONE ON ONE MARRIAGE of 2 consenting of age individuals.
It's very, very rare to find gays who support polygamy. Do a google search if you don't believe me.Quote: LarrySIs there some gay group of some significance that preaches some anti polygamy platform?
You need to figure out what exactly your definition of "marriage" is. For example, gays in the news keep saying that consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they love. But apparently, they must be lying about that because most gays oppose marriage equality for polygamists.Quote: LarrySIf a gay person argues that any one individual "of age" consenting individual should be able to marry another one "of age" consenting individual...with only one marriage at a time....then it wouldnt be hypocracy to be against multiple partnered marriage in any other combination....1 man/5 women/ or 3 women/4 men....whatever the combo.....it doesnt restrict someone from being "pro",,,,ONE ON ONE MARRIAGE of 2 consenting of age individuals.
So do YOU support marriage equality for polygamists? If not, please tell me, what is the downside to your life and the lives of your children and grandchildren if polygamists could get married?
If you support equality ONLY for gays, then you must think that some groups (i.e., gays) are more equal than others (i.e., polygamists).
Quote: Beethoven9thDo you not read my previous posts? Or your OWN previous posts????
Nope. Nice try. I'm not letting you out of this one either.
Let's go back to this post that you edited out of your last response to me:
Quote: Beethoven9thNo, actually you lose. I wrote that after YOU acted offended when I talked about hypocrites. And at one point, you even acknowledged hypocrisy (re: what I was referring to in my quote). Looks like you're very confused here.Quote: ams288I win.Quote: Beethoven9thThat's very good, at least you acknowledge your own hypocrisy on these issues
Show me the specific post of mine you are describing here, otherwise I will be justified in referring to you as a lowlife liar.
I have not edited any of my previous posts (they way you added "(The gays never have a good response to the "hypocrisy" question)" after I had already quoted your post calling me a hypocrite). So this alleged post of mine should be easy for you to find.
You may continue the discussion minus the umbrage if you like at DT.
