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.
I say that ALL people have the right to not be discriminated against.
When I was in the 8th grade, I took a state required Civics class. We learned about our government, our Constitution, etc. One of the main principals taught, which I remember to this day, is that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. Surely my particular 8th grade class was not the only one teaching this principal?
Anyone else recall being taught this?
Where in your studies did you learn about the rights of relationships as opposed to rights of the individual?
I agree. It's exciting to watch history happen right in front of our eyes! I was too young for the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.
I wasn't. Errr, I guess that is I AM not, LOL!
But I feel like I have lived too long, now that I am seeing so many of the gains I thought we had made slip away and evaporate as if they had never been.
Oh don't get me wrong. Its still better than it was 50 years ago. But its nowhere near good enough.
I keep seeing variations of this. What does it mean?
It isn't only the couple in question who believe that their relationship is entitled to legal protection. In point of fact, their marriage is legally no different from the florist's, or your own. You want your relationship to have legal protection, don't you?
The coalition of sexual proclivities seems to change daily, so I am never sure what new initials or the order of the new abbreviations are...gotta be as inclusive as possible...with the exception of NAMBLA of course.
Would you like to bring back the laws that made homosexual acts illegal? Would you be willing to arrest an imprisoned them? Would you like a return of slavery? Should the rights of women to vote be repealed
Society does change over time. The vast majority of your fellow anti gay group do eat pork and do not accept that those who work on the Sabbath should be stoned. Your immense dislikes of gays or lesbian is making you go deeper and deeper away from making a reasonable case for your point of view.
Of course not. That has nothing to do with my argument. I am trying to find out why any limitations should be placed on the marriage contract if the only constraints around that contract come from biblically determined requirements that are no longer deemed to be relevant to society.
If the same arguments used by the gay coalition for seeking equality for their relationships are used by equally vocal groups now or in the future, why should they be denied the civil rights homosexuals are claiming today?
The only people I dislike are those that judge me based on their own preconceived ideas and are too narrow minded or bigoted to engage in a balanced debate without leaning on fallicies and attacks
The coalition of sexual proclivities seems to change daily, so I am never sure what new initials or the order of the new abbreviations are...gotta be as inclusive as possible...with the exception of NAMBLA of course.
So it's a slam against LGBT ? I had thought so, but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Of course not. That has nothing to do with my argument. I am trying to find out why any limitations should be placed on the marriage contract if the only constraints around that contract come from biblically determined requirements that are no longer deemed to be relevant to society.
If the same arguments used by the gay coalition for seeking equality for their relationships are used by equally vocal groups now or in the future, why should they be denied the civil rights homosexuals are claiming today?
The only people I dislike are those that judge me based on their own preconceived ideas and are too narrow minded or bigoted to engage in a balanced debate without leaning on fallicies and attacks
We don't base our laws on Biblically determined requirements. We are not a theocracy.
I'm not certain what this means. Individuals have relationships. Relationships do not exist without individuals.
But the Constitution does not guarantee protections of relationships, it guarantees protections of individuals. That is why a gay person cannot be treated differently than a straight person or a person of color or a man be treated differently than a woman.
But, take for example, the government (IRS) treats the relationship of a married couple's differently than it treats a couple that is co-habituating. It treats a family of four's relationship differently than it treats a single mother's relationship. By giving different "relationships" different deductions or credits based solely on the relationship that is reported to the IRS.
The IRS and some companies provide credits for adopting children, but those same credits are not offered to children born of the individual. Isn't that treating a relationship differently? The FMLA leave is the same for a woman on maternity leave to care for a child she gave birth to or a child she adopted, so the individuals must be treated equally under the law, but the relationship of an adoptive family and a "non-adoptive" family.
Of course not. That has nothing to do with my argument. I am trying to find out why any limitations should be placed on the marriage contract if the only constraints around that contract come from biblically determined requirements that are no longer deemed to be relevant to society.
If the same arguments used by the gay coalition for seeking equality for their relationships are used by equally vocal groups now or in the future, why should they be denied the civil rights homosexuals are claiming today?
The only people I dislike are those that judge me based on their own preconceived ideas and are too narrow minded or bigoted to engage in a balanced debate without leaning on fallicies and attacks
False, you were or have been arguing against changes in the definition of marriage and against changes in society. I have read enough of your posts in these anti gay threads to be able to tell that you are anti gay rights and you have called their sexual orientation depraved. When women got the right to vote, 2 year olds did not.
If you are asking why is the marriage requirements not built on your Bible a easy response would be why should it. Constraints should only be in placed for the public good not to appease fundamental interpretation of some people's holy book. Are voting laws set up from the Bible? There are legal constrains on voting why not on marriage? You have several times dismissed other people's comments on these threads because they do not address the florist but you feel free to shape the thread to fit your anti gay stance. Some of your posts can only be read as bigoted so if you do not want to be judged on what you post it is difficult to judge you anyway else. Is it not a fallacy to state that if two women over the age of 18 can get married then their is no reason that a man can't marry a young child? Is it not a fallacy to state that homosexuals have a equal right to marry as long as they do not marry the sex that they love? Calling gays wanting equal rights as mafia is not an attack?
Your posts sounds like you have an anti gay rage. Children do not have the right to marriage for the same reason they do not have the right to vote, drive or buy guns. Common sense for one.
But the Constitution does not guarantee protections of relationships, it guarantees protections of individuals. That is why a gay person cannot be treated differently than a straight person or a person of color or a man be treated differently than a woman.
But, take for example, the government (IRS) treats the relationship of a married couple's differently than it treats a couple that is co-habituating. It treats a family of four's relationship differently than it treats a single mother's relationship. By giving different "relationships" different deductions or credits based solely on the relationship that is reported to the IRS.
The IRS and some companies provide credits for adopting children, but those same credits are not offered to children born of the individual. Isn't that treating a relationship differently? The FMLA leave is the same for a woman on maternity leave to care for a child she gave birth to or a child she adopted, so the individuals must be treated equally under the law, but the relationship of an adoptive family and a "non-adoptive" family.
Yes, all of that is true.
Just so you know, adoption credits are based on expenses actually incurred to adopt a child. If you don't adopt a child, it stands to reason you did not incur any adoption expenses.
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.
