Post Reply
Page 18 of 28  •  Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 28 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Writing on the Wall
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 3:00PM #171
christzen
Posts: 6,569

May 11, 2012 -- 2:49PM, Bodean wrote:


May 11, 2012 -- 2:36PM, Druac wrote:


May 11, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Bodean wrote:


So .. why is it so important to call it "marriage"??





Because, that IS what it is and that IS what they want.





And where does it end Druac.  A Pedophile WANTS to marry 5 year olds.  There are people who WANT to marry their Goat.  There are people who WANT to have more than one wife.


This is exactly what is meant by "moral relativism".  While screwing a goat is not something you may aprove of, hey .. they seem to think it is ok.  While society has decided it is not right for Adults to have sex with Kids ... hey .. they don't seem to have a problem with it ... it's what they "WANT".


HOWEVER ... regardless of their WANT .. .Society itself decides what it recognizes. That is the real crux of this issue .. Gays WANT society as a whole to accept them, embrace them, consider them to be just like John and Jane Doe.  It's not enough to be tolerated, to be allowed to live without being pusecuted.  Nope ...  They WANT the whole world to view their "marriage" in the same light as it views Traditional Marriage. 


Well ... this is where a war of wants comes to a clash.  They can WANT all they WANT .... but Society is in control of what it WANTS to do.


OH ... and since we are talking about "moral relativism" ... there is no "right thing to do".  It's relative.




 


Again,you stick with the moral factor and ignore the very real legal aspects of wanting your union to be legally recognized,which is what most gays are after.It has little to do with societal acceptance outside achieving legal equality.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 3:02PM #172
Ed.W
Posts: 9,436

May 11, 2012 -- 2:56PM, christzen wrote:


May 11, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Bodean wrote:


 


So .. why is it so important to call it "marriage"??



 


I don't think most gays care what it is called.The ones I know do not.But the squeaky wheel gets the grease,and the ones who push the issue to extremes,such as gays demanding to use the term marriage,are both what the news covers and what opponents of SSM use as propaganda.Most gays could probebly care less what term is used as long as all the same rights existing  in a heterosexual marriage are conveyed.


 


Having said the above while thinking about it all while writing,I do believe gays would object to two different legal classes of spousal union.Marriage,strictly for heterosexuals,and civil unions for gays.Try this tack,and yes,gays will object.That's why the solution should be civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual in the state's eyes,with marriage being strictly a religious rite that can be done simultaneously with the legal civil union if so desired by the couple.


 


 


 


May 11, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Bodean wrote:


On the other hand, the positive effect of the Gay Marriage thing for Gay People, is that having this issue in the news, and having TV shows perpetually include SS couples in the scripts, etc, has had the effect of indoctrinating younger people.  As a consequence, you find more acceptance of SSM in younger people than you do in older people.  As noted in one of the articles, the NC speaker expects the Vote to be overturned in about 20 years ... after all the old people die off.




 


Progress happens.There are still many old people in the same states that strongly oppose SSM that also think it wrong that young white people intermingle with and date black people.
The only people I have ever heard actually talk about harming black people for dating white people was from NC.After seeing an interracial couple here in TX,he made the statement that that n****r would be dead before sundown in NC.


 


Them good old traditional values at work.




Those so called "perks" of matrimony are not rights.


I am single.  No married person has any rights that I do not have right now.


I do not have a "right" to my girlfriend's possessions should she die.  Unless she wants to leave them to me.


I do not have a "right" to visit her in the hospital; that depends on hospital policy.


I do not have a "right" to a health premium discount if I'm married; that is a matter of insurance company policy.


Etc



Admit it:  The only basis you can make your argument is on Straw Men and Red Herrings.  What you need is for me to say "ok".   If it was matter of "rights", my opinion would be irrelavant. 

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 3:51PM #173
Druac
Posts: 11,747

May 11, 2012 -- 2:49PM, Bodean wrote:


May 11, 2012 -- 2:36PM, Druac wrote:


May 11, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Bodean wrote:


So .. why is it so important to call it "marriage"??





Because, that IS what it is and that IS what they want.





And where does it end Druac.  A Pedophile WANTS to marry 5 year olds.  There are people who WANT to marry their Goat.  There are people who WANT to have more than one wife.


This is exactly what is meant by "moral relativism".  While screwing a goat is not something you may aprove of, hey .. they seem to think it is ok.  While society has decided it is not right for Adults to have sex with Kids ... hey .. they don't seem to have a problem with it ... it's what they "WANT".


HOWEVER ... regardless of their WANT .. .Society itself decides what it recognizes. That is the real crux of this issue .. Gays WANT society as a whole to accept them, embrace them, consider them to be just like John and Jane Doe.  It's not enough to be tolerated, to be allowed to live without being pusecuted.  Nope ...  They WANT the whole world to view their "marriage" in the same light as it views Traditional Marriage. 


Well ... this is where a war of wants comes to a clash.  They can WANT all they WANT .... but Society is in control of what it WANTS to do.


OH ... and since we are talking about "moral relativism" ... there is no "right thing to do".  It's relative.





Ahh...the old scare monger trick...one of the favorite of the Conservative Right. It always cracked me up how the morally righteous indignation could easily misrepresent and lie to make their point or get their way.


 Bestiality and Statutory Rape...I wondered how long it would take for one of you to pull that asinine card...thanks for being the one to do it. Let me just point out a couple of realities for you…as you probably didn’t take any time to actually think about what you just wrote.


  1. Bestiality is not consensual…gay marriage and gay sex is.
  2. Bestiality is very much illegal…for many obvious reasons any self-thinking and educated adult could elaborate on.
  3. Statutory rape is called that for a reason…consensual doesn’t play into it. Minors are protected, again, for many obvious reasons any self-thinking adult could elaborate on.



Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.




And again, they don't want to be embraced or even considered like you...they just want the SAME RIGHTS and privileges that every other taxpaying citizen has.

Jesus Is My Savior...He Saves Me From REALITY!
---------------------------------------------
We created god in our own image and likeness!
[George Carlin]
---------------------------------------------
"Reason & Logic" - A Damn Good Slogan!
---------------------------------------------
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, an American physicist
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 3:58PM #174
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,713

May 11, 2012 -- 2:49PM, Bodean wrote:

And where does it end Druac.  A Pedophile WANTS to marry 5 year olds.  There are people who WANT to marry their Goat.




5 year olds and goats cannot enter into a law-abiding contract.

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 3:59PM #175
Druac
Posts: 11,747

May 11, 2012 -- 3:02PM, Ed.W wrote:


May 11, 2012 -- 2:56PM, christzen wrote:


May 11, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Bodean wrote:


 


So .. why is it so important to call it "marriage"??



 


I don't think most gays care what it is called.The ones I know do not.But the squeaky wheel gets the grease,and the ones who push the issue to extremes,such as gays demanding to use the term marriage,are both what the news covers and what opponents of SSM use as propaganda.Most gays could probebly care less what term is used as long as all the same rights existing  in a heterosexual marriage are conveyed.


 


Having said the above while thinking about it all while writing,I do believe gays would object to two different legal classes of spousal union.Marriage,strictly for heterosexuals,and civil unions for gays.Try this tack,and yes,gays will object.That's why the solution should be civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual in the state's eyes,with marriage being strictly a religious rite that can be done simultaneously with the legal civil union if so desired by the couple.


 


 


 


May 11, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Bodean wrote:


On the other hand, the positive effect of the Gay Marriage thing for Gay People, is that having this issue in the news, and having TV shows perpetually include SS couples in the scripts, etc, has had the effect of indoctrinating younger people.  As a consequence, you find more acceptance of SSM in younger people than you do in older people.  As noted in one of the articles, the NC speaker expects the Vote to be overturned in about 20 years ... after all the old people die off.




 


Progress happens.There are still many old people in the same states that strongly oppose SSM that also think it wrong that young white people intermingle with and date black people.
The only people I have ever heard actually talk about harming black people for dating white people was from NC.After seeing an interracial couple here in TX,he made the statement that that n****r would be dead before sundown in NC.


 


Them good old traditional values at work.




Those so called "perks" of matrimony are not rights.


I am single.  No married person has any rights that I do not have right now.


I do not have a "right" to my girlfriend's possessions should she die.  Unless she wants to leave them to me.


I do not have a "right" to visit her in the hospital; that depends on hospital policy.


I do not have a "right" to a health premium discount if I'm married; that is a matter of insurance company policy.


Etc



Admit it:  The only basis you can make your argument is on Straw Men and Red Herrings.  What you need is for me to say "ok".   If it was matter of "rights", my opinion would be irrelavant. 




They want more than a girlfriend or a boyfriend...they want an actual marriage and EVERYTHING that goes with that. Including the commitment and the responsibilities...they are saying they are picking a life partner and what to do all the things that this commitment stands for and provides.


Apparently, you don't.


Jesus Is My Savior...He Saves Me From REALITY!
---------------------------------------------
We created god in our own image and likeness!
[George Carlin]
---------------------------------------------
"Reason & Logic" - A Damn Good Slogan!
---------------------------------------------
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, an American physicist
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 4:28PM #176
Ed.W
Posts: 9,436

May 11, 2012 -- 3:59PM, Druac wrote:



They want more than a girlfriend or a boyfriend...they want an actual marriage and EVERYTHING that goes with that. Including the commitment and the responsibilities...they are saying they are picking a life partner and what to do all the things that this commitment stands for and provides.


Apparently, you don't.






An actual (your own word there) marriage is the union of one man and one woman. 


What they want is a quasi-marriage solely for the purpose of reaping perceived benefits of an actual marriage.


Sorry but if a benefit is offered to married people--and marriage was defined before the benefit--you can't change the definition of marriage and expect the benefit giver to not object since what the benefit giver viewed as a marriage was different from what you now propose.






‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 4:46PM #177
Jasr
Posts: 11,427

May 11, 2012 -- 4:28PM, Ed.W wrote:


An actual (your own word there) marriage is the union of one man and one woman. 




Not everybody shares your definition. But whatever....


May 11, 2012 -- 4:28PM, Ed.W wrote:


What they want is a quasi-marriage solely for the purpose of reaping perceived benefits of an actual marriage.




Some of "them" are perfectly satisfied with a legal arrangement that affords them the very real protections and rights conferred by a marriage license (as well as the responsibilities and obligations)


...and some feel that their union deserves to be called a marriage.


I think the best solution is a universal civil union instrument, executed by same sex and hetero couples alike.


...With the government having nothing further to say in the matter.


With the legal protection of a civil union contract in hand, couples can go to their church/synagogue and be married before God if they wish, or not.


May 11, 2012 -- 4:28PM, Ed.W wrote:


Sorry but if a benefit is offered to married people--and marriage was defined before the benefit--you can't change the definition of marriage and expect the benefit giver to not object since what the benefit giver viewed as a marriage was different from what you now propose.





Except that in most states marriage was not defined before the benefit; hence the profusion of referendums to define it to exclude same sex couples.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 4:53PM #178
Druac
Posts: 11,747

May 11, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Jasr wrote:




Except that in most states marriage was not defined before the benefit; hence the profusion of referendums to define it to exclude same sex couples.




+1

Jesus Is My Savior...He Saves Me From REALITY!
---------------------------------------------
We created god in our own image and likeness!
[George Carlin]
---------------------------------------------
"Reason & Logic" - A Damn Good Slogan!
---------------------------------------------
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, an American physicist
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 5:12PM #179
Ed.W
Posts: 9,436

May 11, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Jasr wrote:



I think the best solution is a universal civil union instrument, executed by same sex and hetero couples alike.





Are you pre-supposing that rights are being denied?  No one had addressed my statement that married folks have no "rights" that anyone else doesn't have.  Your same logic would say that whatever benefits a veteran gets from the government should be available to everyone. 


You need to learn the distinction between a right and a benefit.


May 11, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Jasr wrote:



Except that in most states marriage was not defined before the benefit; hence the profusion of referendums to define it to exclude same sex couples.




Marriage has always been defined as male-female in this country whether explicit or implied does not matter.  It has never been murky or in doubt.  It can be shown that when someone referred to "a married couple" that what was in their mind was one man and one woman.  It's inherent in the word Marriage itself; it needs no further explanation, apparently until now. So 32 states (so far) have made it crystal clear.


‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 5:28PM #180
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,651

May 11, 2012 -- 4:53PM, Druac wrote:


May 11, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Jasr wrote:




Except that in most states marriage was not defined before the benefit; hence the profusion of referendums to define it to exclude same sex couples.




+1





That is why Wingoism would, if possible, turn back the clock to the days before Loving v. Virginia. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 18 of 28  •  Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 28 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook