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.
It's quiet obvious who the intolerant ones are in our country, all someone has to do is read this thread.
No, Republicans do NOT hate everyone nor should Kim be getting a lot of hate talk either. I think it's a disgrace that people who have religious views are attacked for them. Is that OK? NO.
The idea that has gone around the internet a lot is usually in the form "Respect people - not ideas". The latest incarnation I have heard of this is "No person is beneath respect - no idea is above reproach". Another quote I have always loved is "I respect you too much as a person to _not_ address your nonsense beliefs".
No person should be attacked for their religious views - but the views themselves can and even should be. Especially if they are moved from the private sphere to the public sphere in defence of, or as an attack on, something there.
So if - for example - the public expression of negative ideas and attacks on homosexuality and-or gay marriage turn out to have a majority or entirely religious basis then very much should those religious ideas be attacked. If however a person with an issue against homosexuality and gay marriage for religious reasons can translate those religious reasons into secular reasons of argument and reason - and they keep their religious nonsense private - then attacking their religious ideas is not warranted.
Obama in his 2006 keynote lecture put this well when talking about abortion in the context of religion:
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.
Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.
To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."
There's no backlash from conservatives because it's not the big issue to us that liberals insist it is.
Liberals like to campaign on these issues that stir up their masses by insisting that conservatives believe this or that. They say we want to be in your bedroom and that we hate gays. It's just not true and now you see the proof, no outrage.
Hello
I am very conservative and I approve this message
My daughter godmother is gay...and married...2 of the best people I know...they deserve the same legal protection other married couples have
I'm totally for gay marriage
also...The catholic church will never ever accept it...so that should be enough for the religious bible thumpers
Maybe because it's wrong to limit the legal benefits of a governmentally sanctioned legal partnership to only heterosexuals. Maybe because so many people have a close family member who is gay, and so don't think of them as being sub-human.
Remember the riots that didn't happen when laws forbidding interracial marriage were overturned? Pretty much for the same reason.
There's no backlash from conservatives because it's not the big issue to us that liberals insist it is.
Liberals like to campaign on these issues that stir up their masses by insisting that conservatives believe this or that. They say we want to be in your bedroom and that we hate gays. It's just not true and now you see the proof, no outrage.
So you admit that you were wrong about gay marriage? Or have you as a conservative always been very supportive of that unlike most other conservatives?
The idea that has gone around the internet a lot is usually in the form "Respect people - not ideas". The latest incarnation I have heard of this is "No person is beneath respect - no idea is above reproach". Another quote I have always loved is "I respect you too much as a person to _not_ address your nonsense beliefs".
No person should be attacked for their religious views - but the views themselves can and even should be. Especially if they are moved from the private sphere to the public sphere in defence of, or as an attack on, something there.
So if - for example - the public expression of negative ideas and attacks on homosexuality and-or gay marriage turn out to have a majority or entirely religious basis then very much should those religious ideas be attacked. If however a person with an issue against homosexuality and gay marriage for religious reasons can translate those religious reasons into secular reasons of argument and reason - and they keep their religious nonsense private - then attacking their religious ideas is not warranted.
Obama in his 2006 keynote lecture put this well when talking about abortion in the context of religion:
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.
Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.
To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."
Very much so. This is why the term Islamophobia is such an offensive nonsense to free-thinkers, effectively screening an ideology from any analysis or critique. Muslimophobia? - not cool. Islamophobia? What the heck does that mean - you don't get to say a sexist and homophobic and non-believer-punishing ideology is somehow beyond discussion because that ideology falls into the subset called "religion"
Maybe because it's wrong to limit the legal benefits of a governmentally sanctioned legal partnership to only heterosexuals. Maybe because so many people have a close family member who is gay, and so don't think of them as being sub-human.
Remember the riots that didn't happen when laws forbidding interracial marriage were overturned? Pretty much for the same reason.
Maybe, but how do you explain the years that homosexuality and even interracial relationships were very much taboo? Im sure there was just as many gay people as there have ever been at this time, and I doubt many were acting out the 'stereotypical' gay person, they all had families too of course.
At one time, network TV or producers would not depict these things in a positive way, they could joke about it, depict in a negative way though
Location: Born in L.A. - NYC is Second Home - Rustbelt is Home Base
1,607 posts, read 1,085,011 times
Reputation: 1372
OP, old homosexual hating people are dying off, young people like homosexuality and being dropped up 24/7. In an anything goes word, a man with a penis can be a woman. This world also allowed Trump to be Prez.
My wife decided she no longer wanted to be either a wife or a mother. So she packed her stuff and left. Left the continental US, as a matter of fact, and left me with our 9-month-old son.
I filed for divorce three years later (by then it had become pretty clear she wasn't coming back). But to be honest, I was still kind of hoping the divorce proceedings would bring her back...but, nope.
At the divorce hearing, the judge looked at me and said, "I don't like fathers having custody. If the child's mother were in the state, I would order her to take custody. But if she ever returns to the state and wants custody, I will give it to her."
So that is my point: In the absence of no real contract, all a marriage license does is give a judge the power to do whatever he wants--even if neither party in the divorce wants it.
If your wife was there, and the judge said " I don't like fathers having custody " that would be on record, and you would have a great case of getting a new non-prejudicial judge.
If you had done some simple research on how custody is granted, you would understand the powers a judge has in making that decision. You also would understand that you only need a judge to decide custody, if you as a couple couldn't decide how to raise the child after divorce. It's also quite strange that with your history of looking after the child for three years, that any judge would begrudge you custody. The judge sounds very odd.
Custody is not something goes into a marriage contract. A lawyer can telly you if it's allowed in a prenup, I'm not sure.
Remember, the judge wasn't deciding on your marriage contract, and not on your divorce per se, but on the custody of the child. Different situation all around.
No marriage contract in the world is going to cover every eventuality in a relationship, but the vast majority of people understand what they are entering when getting married.
I think your personal experience has tainted your view of marriage.
If your wife was there, and the judge said " I don't like fathers having custody " that would be on record, and you would have a great case of getting a new non-prejudicial judge.
In the US, judges are allowed to be prejudicial, absent prior agreements.
And there are no prior agreements in a marriage certificate.
Quote:
I think your personal experience has tainted your view of marriage.
No, it's tainted my view of documents containing no specific provisions that I expect the courts to enforce.
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.
