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.
Great point, thank you. Male homosexuals can't claim discrimination because straight males can't marry another men as well.
Nice try. This was the same argument used by anti-miscengenists (no discrimination! the law applies equally! whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks!).
That argument was rejected because it's a stupid argument. In fact, it's so stupid that the "lawyers" on your side of the issue never use it, because it's not legally sound.
Nice try. This was the same argument used by anti-miscengenists (no discrimination! the law applies equally! whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks!).
That argument was rejected because it's a stupid argument. In fact, it's so stupid that the "lawyers" on your side of the issue never use it, because it's not legally sound.
I am sure that calling an argument "stupid" is not a counterargument by itself... Remember this is not a court, we have different standards here and in my eyes this argument is as good as any others.
Notably, arguments of the lawyers on your side haven't been that good either since same sex marriage is not a reality in most of jurisdictions.
And where same-sex marriage is legal, gay guys can marry guys and straight guys can marry guys.
Still no discrimination based upon your definition.
You can't be serious. In a racially segregated society, white guys can marry white girls and black guys can marry black girls. Still no discrimination based upon your definition!
I am not the one claiming discrimination here... As I see it there is none.
Actually, you do state that there is discrimination, except that it's justified. Using fallacies like Appeal to Tradition or Appeal to Nature, you state that the status quo in denying homosexuals (even legally married ones) the same rights, benefits, and protections as heterosexuals is perfectly fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
You can't be serious. In a racially segregated society, white guys can marry white girls and black guys can marry black girls. Still no discrimination based upon your definition!
Re-read my post again. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
rebel12 said that no discrimination exists. I pointed out that where same-sex marriage is legal, there is still no discrimination (based upon rebel12's definition of discrimination).
How was Argentina a Christian fundamentalist country??? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
Right now, none exist, thankfully, because nations with a large quantity of Christians tend to be more secular than their Muslim counterparts.
Nonsense. Christians are simply much more tolerant than most other religions.
I don't think there is an Islam country that is more tolerant towards homosexuals than the US, UK or other Christian countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
The only difference between the United States and Iran is that they actually take their holy book seriously.
Nonsense again, United Kingdom, a country where the head of state, the Queen, is also the head of the official church, the Church of England, is one the most tolerant countries in the world.
Christians are very tolerant. Period. Try your rhetoric in any Muslim country LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
So it was a farce, then. Never mind that it is still a legal document; never mind that John Adams, who signed the treaty, clearly and bluntly supported separation of church and state in private and public statements.
What does separation of state and church has to do with traditions and foundations?
Most Christian countries have a separation of church and state. It is not an American invention.
Being based on Christian moral values and traditions does not mean that the country has to be a theocracy or a "fundamentalist state".
I don't think you would call the UK a theocracy, would you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
So what? Just because a majority of Americans were Christian doesn't mean America is a Christian nation. Since we're worshiping the Founders here, I'll point out that they were highly concerned with protecting the rights of the minority. "Democracy" implied mob rule to them.
Did you think that Christians would found a Muslim country? LOL
Our laws, copied almost verbatim from the British law, reflect Christian morality and believes.
Our constitution, based largely on concepts contained in Magna Carta, reflect Christian morality.
What else did you expect in a country founded by Christians????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
Furthermore, at no point in the Constitution is God ever mentioned. If America were a Christian nation, you'd expect this little fact to have been included somewhere!
Not really. Before the American Revolution the Colonies were a Christian country as part of Great Britain. After all the King was the head of the church.
After the revolution many Christians, remember that the Pilgrims - Puritans and Quakers - were really strict Christian fundamentalists, were against using the name of God too much. Also, when the population was comprised in 99% of Christians some things were considered way to obvious to be mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
I'd disagree on that point. But rather than derail into an argument over Israel's war crimes, I'd ask you precisely what implications America being a "Christian nation" would have.
Celebration of Sundays and not Saturday of Mondays as days off. Christmas being a national holiday.
Bigamy being banned. Etc etc etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
How does this address my point that a scientific, secular humanistic approach to human policy is far more sensible than basing the fate of millions on a 5000 year old book with no known author and no citations?
Only that the book has been proven to work for a few thousand years while the "scientific view" often changes...
Try reading XIX century book on astronomy: ever heard of ether? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
Ironically enough, communistic states end up closely resembling totalitarian laissez faire right wing nations; limited human rights in the name of "national security", extreme militarism, distinct social classes, heavy resistance to change and a large, cheap labor force with no unions and no safety net.
Yet still they are the only known examples of states based on solely atheistic and scientific approach to morality and ethics. As you know it didn't work at that well and gays were routinely sent to prison in all communist countries. How's is that for the "secular, atheist perspective" on same sex marriage that you consider so superior to the Christian one? LOL
Actually, you do state that there is discrimination, except that it's justified.
No. Nobody sane would argue that not letting children make binding legal decisions amounts to discrimination.
Restrictiveness do not always equal discrimination.
Last edited by rebel12; 08-16-2012 at 09:52 AM..
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.
