U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-07-2011, 12:45 PM
 
1,054 posts, read 1,827,632 times
Reputation: 699

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
I'm not even sure what that means.




I think there are a lot of Christians that think those 100+ "churches" are completely wrong. It makes as much sense for them to suggest that gay marriage is right as it does for them to come out and support adultery. Both are prohibited in the Bible...but I guess if the Bible is not what your church is about...
Your belief is just an opinion. My belief is just an opinion. The job of the american government is to accomidate for all unless it impedes on somebody else's rights.

Your belief that no gays should get married actually impedes on many people's path to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

My belief that any gay should be allowed to be married to a same-sex consenting adult, but no organization should be forced to marry them does not impede on anybody else's right.

Two beliefs with two different outcomes. America isn't here to legislate morality as that is up to the church and state.

There are absolute behaviors that impede on people's rights that include: murder (without condition of self-defense), theft, assaults or other obvious behaviors. The government is also here to make sure no one religion or person or group of persons has the right to legislate against another group or person.

In essence you are wishing to have our government pick the beliefs of your religion because you think it is right despite the wishes of many people in america. You can compare it to murder using your bible all you want, but without the bible you and I know there is no act of responsibile-adult based homosexuality that impedes on any of your rights.

You can sit here and call my religion anything you wish as it is your right, but you are in-fact overstepping your boundaries when you demand obedience from society based on your belief. In England people with this kind of power were called 'nobles.' It was these nobles and abuses from the Church of England our founders were running from.

 
Old 07-07-2011, 12:48 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,668,753 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
It is a very relevant question. You say sex is not an issue. I say if sex is not an issue, then a gay couple should be able to have a legal marriage. You refuse to respond because you know your logic has failed.
I'm sorry that you apparently cannot comprehend what I'm saying. This is not based on sex. I'm saying you cannot have a same-gender marriage because it violates the nature of what marriage is.
Quote:
I was always told it was Idiot Out Wandering Around, but that was just because they were ****ty drivers.
That, too.
Quote:
Actually, it was seven judges on the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously affirming the ruling of a District Court judge, bringing the grand total to eight, and I highly doubt all of those judges were liberal.
whatever.
Quote:
Using that logic though, what about Judge Vaughn Walker, who provided the ruling on Prop 8. He was not liberal, was nominated by not one but two conservative presidents and was originally blocked by liberals who felt he had an anti-gay bias. You can't use the "liberal hack judge" cliche on him, so who else do you explain his ruling?
Everything I've heard was that he had a pro-gay bias.
Quote:
Wrong again. No new version for gay people. They just get to join in with the straight marriages.
whatever.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 12:51 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,668,753 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omahahonors View Post
Your belief is just an opinion. My belief is just an opinion. The job of the american government is to accomidate for all unless it impedes on somebody else's rights.

Your belief that no gays should get married actually impedes on many people's path to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I have no problem with gay people getting married. There you go AGAIN misrepresenting me.
Quote:
My belief that any gay should be allowed to be married to a same-sex consenting adult, but no organization should be forced to marry them does not impede on anybody else's right.
It does create a new version or definition of "marriage" though.
Quote:
Two beliefs with two different outcomes. America isn't here to legislate morality as that is up to the church and state.
Morality is legislated all over. That's why murder, theft, etc are illegal. But I'm not actually arguing from a morality standpoint here.
Quote:
There are absolute behaviors that impede on people's rights that include: murder (without condition of self-defense), theft, assaults or other obvious behaviors. The government is also here to make sure no one religion or person or group of persons has the right to legislate against another group or person.

In essence you are wishing to have our government pick the beliefs of your religion because you think it is right despite the wishes of many people in america. You can compare it to murder using your bible all you want, but without the bible you and I know there is no act of responsibile-adult based homosexuality that impedes on any of your rights.
No. "in essence" you are completely wrong about me and my motivations here. Get a clue. Go back and re-read what I've been saying.
Quote:
You can sit here and call my religion anything you wish as it is your right, but you are in-fact overstepping your boundaries when you demand obedience from society based on your belief. In England people with this kind of power were called 'nobles.' It was these nobles and abuses from the Church of England our founders were running from.
I'm not demanding that, so get over yourself.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,889 posts, read 19,073,459 times
Reputation: 9094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
I'm sorry that you apparently cannot comprehend what I'm saying. This is not based on sex. I'm saying you cannot have a same-gender marriage because it violates the nature of what marriage is.
You said, and I quote...
Quote:
Sexual preference has never, nor is it now an issue in marriage.
Now, if sex is not an issue, then two adult men should be able to enter into a legally recognized marriage and not have their application be rejected, correct?

Quote:
whatever.
What do you mean "whatever?" Whatever as in "I have no concern for the factual accuracy of my posts" or whatever as in "I know I'm beat and give up?"

Clarification is needed.

Quote:
Everything I've heard was that he had a pro-gay bias.
Of course. I'm sure most of your reading is done by way of highly biased conservative and religious sources who, much like you did when speaking of the eight Iowa judges, throw baseless cliches at those who don't rule in your favor without any regard for factual accuracy. That said, you can go back several pages and see the links I posted which show that Judge Walker did not have a pro-gay bias. If you like, I can even link you to the original post right here. It'll be easy to find because it's one where I received a substantial amount of rep for destroying your position.

Let me know.

Quote:
whatever.
Whatever as in, "Ok I'm wrong?" Again, more clarification is in order.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 01:29 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,668,753 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
You said, and I quote...
I again repeat that no--sex (as in conduct, not gender) is not an issue, nor has it ever been.
Quote:


Now, if sex is not an issue, then two adult men should be able to enter into a legally recognized marriage and not have their application be rejected, correct?
I'm guessing my clarification of the above question resolves your question here.
Quote:
What do you mean "whatever?" Whatever as in "I have no concern for the factual accuracy of my posts" or whatever as in "I know I'm beat and give up?"

Clarification is needed.
I mean "whatever" as in you are either a) willfully ignoring what I am saying and you have a different opinion or b) unable to understand my point of view. Either way, I am growing tired of trying to convince you because it's not going to happen. That's ok...I'm tolerant enough to allow you to be wrong.
Quote:
Of course. I'm sure most of your reading is done by way of highly biased conservative and religious sources who, much like you did when speaking of the eight Iowa judges, throw baseless cliches at those who don't rule in your favor without any regard for factual accuracy. That said, you can go back several pages and see the links I posted which show that Judge Walker did not have a pro-gay bias. If you like, I can even link you to the original post right here. It'll be easy to find because it's one where I received a substantial amount of rep for destroying your position.

Let me know.
I honestly don't really care what Judge Walker's voting record is. I understand Walker is gay, is he not? You don't think there is ANY reason to think there is a bias?

In any event, if he overruled the people of California he was wrong. It's that simple.
Quote:
Whatever as in, "Ok I'm wrong?" Again, more clarification is in order.
Again...."whatever" as in "I'm tired of arguing with you because you're too stubborn to admit when you're wrong". You're not bringing anything new to the argument. You have never brought a logical argument to the table, instead only whining from emotion.

Give me a viable reason why we should legislate based on a sexual preference of a very small minority. I'll be waiting.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 01:43 PM
 
2,665 posts, read 2,173,672 times
Reputation: 1471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Not according to what "marriage" is, no. If Iowa wants to call it "marriage" according to what a liberal court decided, then so be it. But it's no more a "marriage" than a circle can be square.
You may have missed my post, it ended up being the last one on the prior page so it's understandable.

You're missing an important point.

A circle is a circle. A square is a square. They are not defined. They simply are. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig, and a rose by any other name is still a rose.

But marriage was invented, defined, and controlled by humanity. We decide what it is. Historically, at least in the short term past, it's meant one man and one woman. But marriage exists according to whatever terms that we, as society, say that it does. We can abolish it. We can change it to be same gendered persons. We could even allow it to be more than two persons. It is what we say it is.

A square simply is. We don't define it, we simply observe and measure.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 01:51 PM
 
2,665 posts, read 2,173,672 times
Reputation: 1471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Give me a viable reason why we should legislate based on a sexual preference of a very small minority. I'll be waiting.
The burden of answering that question is on you.

We live in (ostensibly) a free society. That means, amongst other things, that the default condition for any activity is that it's legal, and that, in order to ban something, the government must show a compelling interest to do so.

So, the question is not why should such a small minority be granted privileges, the question is what compelling state interest exists to deny them.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 02:53 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,668,753 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss View Post
You may have missed my post, it ended up being the last one on the prior page so it's understandable.

You're missing an important point.

A circle is a circle. A square is a square. They are not defined. They simply are. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig, and a rose by any other name is still a rose.

But marriage was invented, defined, and controlled by humanity. We decide what it is. Historically, at least in the short term past, it's meant one man and one woman. But marriage exists according to whatever terms that we, as society, say that it does. We can abolish it. We can change it to be same gendered persons. We could even allow it to be more than two persons. It is what we say it is.

A square simply is. We don't define it, we simply observe and measure.

We differ on where marriage came from and how it was invented. I believe it was created by God. You may disagree. Having said that we can probably both agree on the fact that marriage originally came about as a way to endorse the relationship of a man and a woman for procreation. But the bottom line is that marriage IS a man and a woman. Marriage describes the relationship between a man and a woman. It's not just any relationship--at its core it's a man/woman relationship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss View Post
The burden of answering that question is on you.

We live in (ostensibly) a free society. That means, amongst other things, that the default condition for any activity is that it's legal, and that, in order to ban something, the government must show a compelling interest to do so.

So, the question is not why should such a small minority be granted privileges, the question is what compelling state interest exists to deny them.
I'm not the one arguing for changing the status quo. It's up to your side to give a valid reason for the change.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 11:16 PM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
163 posts, read 320,571 times
Reputation: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
We differ on where marriage came from and how it was invented. I believe it was created by God. You may disagree. Having said that we can probably both agree on the fact that marriage originally came about as a way to endorse the relationship of a man and a woman for procreation. But the bottom line is that marriage IS a man and a woman. Marriage describes the relationship between a man and a woman. It's not just any relationship--at its core it's a man/woman relationship.



I'm not the one arguing for changing the status quo. It's up to your side to give a valid reason for the change.
There are people who want it to change, it impedes on absolutely no one's rights to enact such a change. Therefore, it is up to the government to see to it that the narrow definition of marriage is expanded to include every citizen under their laws, regardless of the sexes of either consenting party.

The way I see it is this, more people are realizing the true needlessness of religion, and are
starting to form thoughts, opinions, and moral codes independently from what any given scripture says. As a consequence, laws that were considered obvious manifestations of a god's will are being questioned as just a legally enforced religion. If the law happens to coincide with the chosen religion of an overwhelming majority of the populace, then there won't be quite the resistance as you would find now, when more people are drawing more reasonable conclusions about the nature, will, or even existence of a god.
 
Old 07-08-2011, 12:28 AM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
306 posts, read 599,575 times
Reputation: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManOnTheMoon View Post
The way I see it is this, more people are realizing the true needlessness of religion, and are
starting to form thoughts, opinions, and moral codes independently from what any given scripture says. As a consequence, laws that were considered obvious manifestations of a god's will are being questioned as just a legally enforced religion. If the law happens to coincide with the chosen religion of an overwhelming majority of the populace, then there won't be quite the resistance as you would find now, when more people are drawing more reasonable conclusions about the nature, will, or even existence of a god.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the common definition of marriage is purely based on religious principles. Marriage has simply been defined for hundreds and hundreds of years as a union between a man and a woman. Obviously social standards have changed and that definition is being challenged. It's silly to conclude that the current common definition of marriage points to a legally enforced religion.
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.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top