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.
Correct, they aren't. However most everyone involved with writing the Constitution and those who ratified it, believed in God and were Christian. Virtually all our morals/values are connected to it whether you wish to believe it or not.
That said, I don't think religion has to be invoked in this discussion since we are not talking about what defines marriage. Instead we are discussing whether someone's behavior should grant them a protected class or not. Most hate groups are disliked/despised, but should they be afforded a protected group status because they would be discriminated against in the workplace for their beliefs/behavior?
My point was that no matter how reviled a group may be in society, all it takes is a movement and activist judges to help put us on a slippery slope.
Granting special rights or a protected status for people based on their behavior cannot only be granted based on what is considered PC at the time.
I didn't quote you. I quoted loriinwa, who said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa
Wrong again. The interracial couple were not trying to redefine marriage based on their sexual preference, they were seeking equal treatment as a man and a woman under the laws that already existed. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That definition never included the race or ethnicity of either participant, which is why that law was unconstitutional.
You are arguing apples while trying to prove oranges.
See where she is calling a law unconstitutional and using her take on the Biblical definition of marriage to do it?
If the Constitution defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, we would not have had DOMA.
Further amusing me, plenty of marriages in the Bible were between one man and hundreds of women.
Pathetic. But those laws should be void later this year. Let's hope!
We already won one victory, and the 5th circuit may rule at some point before the supreme court does. But I won't hold my breath. They are more likely to do nothing until after June.
I don't believe that anyone should be discriminated against based on sexual preference, but nobody will ever convince me that "transgendered" is anything more than a mental illness. As such, I don't see why they should be afforded any more protection than anyone else suffering a mental illness.
I really think that when it comes to work place equality laws the gay community would have a better chance of getting the laws passed if they dropped the transgender equality part of the law. I have given reasons why I personally feel uncomfortable with it in other posts but suffice it to say it makes a lot of people uncomfortable for many reasons and has a long way to go to get a legal protection. Gay rights law by itself might have actually passed.
See, you don't understand analogies. You are being obtuse.
Sure...
Quote:
I was not "comparing" frozen treats to sexual orientation, I was using frozen treats as an example to make the concept easier to understand.
Analogies are comparisons. It's sorta the definition.
Quote:
The analogy I provided clearly shows that the demand for a different item that is offered to everyone else, based solely on the particular tastes of a particular group is by its very nature, special treatment.
It showed your insistence that this is the case, yes. And again with sexual orientation as a "taste"? Anyway, your example is nothing but an argument that every minority request for consideration should be considered SPECIAL TREATMENT. Asking for left-hand scissors when everyone is already offered right-hand ones? SPECIAL TREATMENT.
Quote:
Nothing in my analogy indicated that the government was refusing to serve everyone equally, and there is no "ICE CREAM" faction...the free ice cream was offered to everyone equally...it is the free frozen yogurt faction that demands the special rights.
So - we're back to Saudi Arabia, where everyone is equally free to worship Allah?
We already won one victory, and the 5th circuit may rule at some point before the supreme court does. But I won't hold my breath. They are more likely to do nothing until after June.
Yeah, certain states (KS/AL/MS) that are so rabidly against SS marriage drag their feet all the way to the finish line lol! And I was born and raised in Kansas. I know how it is there.
What scares you about gay marriage? What is so scary about love? Adults should be able to marry the person they love. This isn't about special treatment. Marriage is about legally joining two adults in love. You can try to rationalize this any way that you want to - but you are on the losing end of this battle.
Nothing scares me about gays or gays creating loving relationships and families. You can rationalize my opinion any way you want as well.
Analogies are comparisons. It's sorta the definition.
It showed your insistence that this is the case, yes. And again with sexual orientation as a "taste"? Anyway, your example is nothing but an argument that every minority request for consideration should be considered SPECIAL TREATMENT. Asking for left-hand scissors when everyone is already offered right-hand ones? SPECIAL TREATMENT.
So - we're back to Saudi Arabia, where everyone is equally free to worship Allah?
When people compare homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia, THAT is a comparison. An analogy uses an example to explain a concept. The purpose of using this particular analogy was that it takes this argument out of the emotional realm, so that a person can look only at the example to understand the concept.
Yes, asking for left handed scissors is special treatment. I am left handed, and while using right handed scissors in not as easy as lefties, I would not demand that someone run out and buy scissors just for me.
Should Jewish store owners in the US that observe the Sabbath on Saturdays, require the law to change so that ALL BUSINESSES must be closed on Saturday, so they won't lose business. Is that religious discrimination? No, but to demand the government change the law to accommodate them would be seeking special treatment.
I didn't quote you. I quoted loriinwa, who said this:
See where she is calling a law unconstitutional and using her take on the Biblical definition of marriage to do it?
If the Constitution defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, we would not have had DOMA.
Further amusing me, plenty of marriages in the Bible were between one man and hundreds of women.
I'm not using the Biblical definition. I am using the definition that Western civilization has used since before the US was established.
The Constitution doesn't define marriage because the Government only got involved in marriage to extract revenue from what already existed.
Plenty of marriages in the Bible were between one man and (hundreds? you must be a graduate of common core math) several women, but I don't recall a single instance of a marriage in the bible between two men or two women.
The only situations I can think of would involve something like a Christian bookstore or something like that, where it could have a measurable detrimental effect on the business.
Nothing scares me about gays or gays creating loving relationships and families. You can rationalize my opinion any way you want as well.
Why are you so rabidly against it?
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.
