Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Restrict others? That is why we have the right to vote, or have you forgotten that fact?
We have the right to vote to select representatives. We don't have the right to vote on minority rights. That one was settled pretty decisively about 45 years ago. This is why we have courts as a check and balance against the popular vote - to prevent the majority from riding roughshod over minorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromekitty
As I have stated time and again here, I do not argue the bible. If YOU have a problem with it, take it up with the man himself. He is willing to listen.
How do you know what I do and do not support, in regards to as you call it biblical law. All I have shared is that I am Christian and I do not support homosexuality in any shape, form or fashion, and anything other than those things are OT.
No. They're not off topic because they get to the heart of the matter. You want the government to legislate using the Bible. But you want to pick and choose what the Bible says.
Your right to your beliefs ends with you. You do not have the right to inflict that on others through legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromekitty
You have done nothing but speak from both sides of your mouth. I have told you save your dog and pony ahow for others because I am not interested. I am who I am and I believe and stand for what I believe.
And yet you keep responding. I've been quite consistent with my arguments.
If you want to call rational discourse a "dog and pony show," that really displays where the supporters of the amendment are coming from. I hope others can see this and realize that the Amendment is irrational, inequitable, and unnecessary.
Historically, marriage as an institution arose around the dawn of the agricultural age as a means of ensuring that property could be easily and clearly inherited within a defined family unit after death, thus avoiding the chaos and bloodshed that may otherwise have arisen from disputed claims. The religious implications of marriage arose later. The idea of "civil marriage" (marriage as granted by a government) is a very recent invention, and arose far, far later. The idea of marriage simply as a means of expressing love between two people is even more recent than that.
The original purpose of marriage therefore was to provide stability and continuity within a family unit with offspring, suggesting that a valid marriage originally required at least the intent to reproduce. I will not add any further comments to this fact in reference to the present debate, but will allow you to take from it what you will.
Either way, marriage is something that exists, has existed for many, many years and has had a very clear definition until recently. I don't like laws that change the meaning of real things that exist outside of legislation, which is what has happened elsewhere in the country. This amendment would never have been considered necessary by anyone had there not been precedents set elsewhere.
And that guy with the shotgun is obviously an idiot.
The original purpose of marriage therefore was to provide stability and continuity within a family unit with offspring, suggesting that a valid marriage originally required at least the intent to reproduce. I will not add any further comments to this fact in reference to the present debate, but will allow you to take from it what you will.
Yet many straight people get married without the intent to reproduce. And many gay couples provide stability and continuity to adopted or surrogate children in a family unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAMF
Either way, marriage is something that exists, has existed for many, many years and has had a very clear definition until recently. I don't like laws that change the meaning of real things that exist outside of legislation, which is what has happened elsewhere in the country. This amendment would never have been considered necessary by anyone had there not been precedents set elsewhere.
The problem is that as a civil institution, married people accrue many subsidies and advantages not accrued by unmarried people. To continue an exclusive practice without allowing a minority to marry to accrue these benefits.
No one is saying that any church has to recognize this. But as long as it's a civil institution, it should be equitable.
The problem is that as a civil institution, married people accrue many subsidies and advantages not accrued by unmarried people. To continue an exclusive practice without allowing a minority to marry to accrue these benefits.
No one is saying that any church has to recognize this. But as long as it's a civil institution, it should be equitable.
Then a better solution is to get government out of the marriage business, where it doesn't belong. Given the impossibility of that, there should be no subsidies and advantages accrued by married people based solely on their marital status, which can be accomplished in the public sphere with a simplification of the tax code.
Most large corporations and many if not most government agencies already provide benefits to same sex domestic partnerships (actually excluding opposite sex domestic partnerships which can be construed as discriminatory in a certain light), and legal precedent has determined that this would not be changed by this amendment.
Restrict others? That is why we have the right to vote, or have you forgotten that fact?
As I have stated time and again here, I do not argue the bible. If YOU have a problem with it, take it up with the man himself. He is willing to listen.
How do you know what I do and do not support, in regards to as you call it biblical law. All I have shared is that I am Christian and I do not support homosexuality in any shape, form or fashion, and anything other than those things are OT.
You have done nothing but speak from both sides of your mouth. I have told you save your dog and pony show for others because I am not interested. I am who I am and I believe and stand for what I believe.
Why dont you go ahead and support amendments that makes divorce illegal, single parenting illegal, childless marriages illegal, etc. Why not use your convictions to address the things that are really "destroying" your religous views on marriage? The small minority of committed gay couples can't possibly do the damage to "traditional marriage" that these other things are already doing.
Please explain what was hateful or bigoted about what I said? Nothing. I am attempting to have a discourse with you and you are continuing to obfuscate. If you're going to try to restrict others' rights through an Amendment and base your support on the Bible, you're going to have to deal with people arguing about the Bible and pointing out the inconsistencies in what the Bible has to say.
How can you support the Biblical proscription against homosexuality and not the Biblical proscriptions against eating shellfish, or the Biblical ideas about stoning non-virgin brides and rebellious teenagers? It's inconsistent.
I said no such thing. The law would invalidate civil partnerships and unions between unmarried couples. Judges could use these laws to remove some domestic violence protections from unmarried couples - straight and gay. It is not a certainty, but Amendments' effects are in their application, as interpreted by judges. So, this amendment leaves these possibilities open. That is no lie.
What is a certainty, is that dependents and children of domestic partners who work for governments will lose their healthcare coverage.
Then you shouldn't have a problem defending your positions by addressing my points not resorting to manufactured outrage.
I can tell from your posts that your a reasonably intelligent person, however you should refrain from arguing the bible. Its pretty clear you know little about the subject. You bring up points from the old testament. The old testament was a book of laws. Laws which no man could keep. All those laws became null and void with the coming of Christ.
We have the right to vote to select representatives. We don't have the right to vote on minority rights. That one was settled pretty decisively about 45 years ago. This is why we have courts as a check and balance against the popular vote - to prevent the majority from riding roughshod over minorities.
No. They're not off topic because they get to the heart of the matter. You want the government to legislate using the Bible. But you want to pick and choose what the Bible says.
Your right to your beliefs ends with you. You do not have the right to inflict that on others through legislation.
And yet you keep responding. I've been quite consistent with my arguments.
If you want to call rational discourse a "dog and pony show," that really displays where the supporters of the amendment are coming from. I hope others can see this and realize that the Amendment is irrational, inequitable, and unnecessary.
This is not about black people. You need to learn to stay on topic. You can not even do that.
Of course there is an attack on Christianity. Your posts are even more proof of that. Let us get something clear right here, right now. I do not owe anyone respect. One must earn that. I do however owe it to them to be cordial until they prove otherwise.
So at what point did you come to the conclusion that gay people do not deserve your respect?
Supporters of this amendment are no different than those who supported the idea thay non-whites were inferior to whites and, therefore, did not deserve the same rights as white people.
Restrict others? That is why we have the right to vote, or have you forgotten that fact? .
There was a time not so long ago when some pepple in this country did not have the right to vote because they were women. And there were people that did not want to allow women to have that right...simply because of their gender.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
