Federal judge strikes down AL marriage ban :) (American, America, legal)

[MMM05]

Originally Posted by southward bound

This caught my eye: the fact is that the indicators imply that legal gay marriage helps strengthen and build up "the fabric of ... civilized society"

"indicators imply?"

I see no grounds for the conclusion.

Nevertheless, this entire gay marriage debate has an erroneous focus. I don't care what adults do or how they join their lives with a partner whether legally or otherwise, but I do not believe the gay community has a right to redefine the word "marriage". Most of them are intelligent and creative -- they ought to come up with another word if they don't like "civil unions".

If you say that "civil union" doesn't grant the same rights that marriage does, then work to get legislation passed that does. If gays had put as much energy and effort into that as they have into getting their relationships accepted as "marriage" they would have had far less opposition.

"Marriage" is already taken, and has been for a long, long time.

Basically, they want to Redefine Right and wrong, Good and evil. But, the hate ''these'' display toward any who simply oppose the immorality of this issue, they are Fine with. Hypocrite is a word they may also try to redefine soon.

[mikebnllnb]

Originally Posted by southward bound

This caught my eye: the fact is that the indicators imply that legal gay marriage helps strengthen and build up "the fabric of ... civilized society"

"indicators imply?"

I see no grounds for the conclusion.

Nevertheless, this entire gay marriage debate has an erroneous focus. I don't care what adults do or how they join their lives with a partner whether legally or otherwise, but I do not believe the gay community has a right to redefine the word "marriage". Most of them are intelligent and creative -- they ought to come up with another word if they don't like "civil unions".

If you say that "civil union" doesn't grant the same rights that marriage does, then work to get legislation passed that does. If gays had put as much energy and effort into that as they have into getting their relationships accepted as "marriage" they would have had far less opposition.

"Marriage" is already taken, and has been for a long, long time.

Taken by whom?

By your argument 50 years ago marriage was "taken" by couples of the same race.

[mikebnllnb]

Originally Posted by MMM05

Basically, they want to Redefine Right and wrong, Good and evil. But, the hate ''these'' display toward any who simply oppose the immorality of this issue, they are Fine with. Hypocrite is a word they may also try to redefine soon.

From time to time in this country we need to redefine things. There is nothing wrong in allowing two consenting adults who love one another marry.

There have been many times that we as a nation have needed to redefine what up until that point seemed fine. Things like slavery, women being second-class citizens, segregation, child labor, banning interracial marriage......etc.



I'm still waiting on an answer to the question I posed to you earlier in the thread.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by southward bound

Nevertheless, this entire gay marriage debate has an erroneous focus. I don't care what adults do or how they join their lives with a partner whether legally or otherwise, but I do not believe the gay community has a right to redefine the word "marriage". Most of them are intelligent and creative -- they ought to come up with another word if they don't like "civil unions".

This appears to now be the accepted fallback position - "it was only about the word marriage". It's weapons-grade BS. Dozens of states specifically banned - in their rassum frassum constitutions - same-sex civil unions right on par with same-sex marriage. A few went so far as to ban any sort of legal union.

In other words, the opposing side communicated, quite clearly, that both marriage and civil unions were equally undesired. So why should same-sex couples and their backers fight for less than full recognition? Same fight.

If you say that "civil union" doesn't grant the same rights that marriage does, then work to get legislation passed that does. If gays had put as much energy and effort into that as they have into getting their relationships accepted as "marriage" they would have had far less opposition.

Putting up a fight for each individual right that comes with married status? Oh, the bigots would have loved that. The excuse comes pre-baked: "If your civil union involved the same rights as marriage, why is there a separate word?" Look at the Alabama probate judges now - they must know they're losing, but they'll still close their offices to delay the inevitable for just a few days. It's that important to them that gays don't have equal rights.

As for "far less opposition" in exchange for separate but (mostly) equal status, there was no evidence of that even being offered. So proponents of same-sex marriage judged the sentiment of the nation correctly and went for full recognition. Whether a less-satisfactory outcome could have been gained at lesser cost is academical now. We're in the end game, the opponents have lost both rooks and their queen, so why ponder if they would have accepted a draw 15 moves ago? It would be nice if they'd concede and retain a bit of dignity, but - their call.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by MMM05

Basically, they want to Redefine Right and wrong, Good and evil. But, the hate ''these'' display toward any who simply oppose the immorality of this issue, they are Fine with. Hypocrite is a word they may also try to redefine soon.

I guess you'll just have to wait and SEE.

[MMM05]

Originally Posted by mikebnllnb

From time to time in this country we need to redefine things. There is nothing wrong in allowing two consenting adults who love one another marry.

There have been many times that we as a nation have needed to redefine what up until that point seemed fine. Things like slavery, women being second-class citizens, segregation, child labor, banning interracial marriage......etc.



I'm still waiting on an answer to the question I posed to you earlier in the thread.

Wait on pal. I choose who I respond to...and who I don't. Redefine my choice to not answer you.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by MMM05

Basically, they want to Redefine Right and wrong, Good and evil.

Not at all. Since time immemorial right and wrong and good and evil have been a reflection of the ethic of reciprocity, going back to the Code of Hammurabi from Babylonia, and ancient Egyptian teachings such as, "Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you"; both going back over 1000 years before the Old Testament. Your presumption in advocating for the depriving other people the respect and right to marry the person that they love, even while capitalizing on that right yourself, is a violation of one of the most basic principles of morality. You seem to mistake your chosen dogma for morality. In doing so, you are committing a sin even in the eyes of Christian perspective, the sin of hubris. So no matter how you slice it, you're in the wrong, and your comments deserve every bit of the condemnation they're getting plus some. I know it is unpleasant having your own perspective labeled as immoral, especially when you think what you're doing is a reflection of moral values. But ignorance is no defense for the moral transgression inherent in your perspective.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by jacqueg

Now I've lost you, I truly don't know what you are talking about.

Please refer to my previous posts, on this and several other threads, and explain to me how you've come to the conclusion that I somehow oppose ssm.

your post was sarcasm, my mistake.

[MJJersey]

It looks like they're going to have to send federal troops into Alabama again to enforce civil rights rulings. Moore is telling everyone not to follow the federal court rulings.

[MMM05]

Originally Posted by bUU

Not at all. Since time immemorial right and wrong and good and evil have been a reflection of the ethic of reciprocity, going back to the Code of Hammurabi from Babylonia, and ancient Egyptian teachings such as, "Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you"; both going back over 1000 years before the Old Testament. Your presumption in advocating for the depriving other people the respect and right to marry the person that they love, even while capitalizing on that right yourself, is a violation of one of the most basic principles of morality. You seem to mistake your chosen dogma for morality. In doing so, you are committing a sin even in the eyes of Christian perspective, the sin of hubris. So no matter how you slice it, you're in the wrong, and your comments deserve every bit of the condemnation they're getting plus some. I know it is unpleasant having your own perspective labeled as immoral, especially when you think what you're doing is a reflection of moral values. But ignorance is no defense for the moral transgression inherent in your perspective.

You make ridiculous comments. You choose to rationalize what you want to be fact, (which it's NOT) then, as the others on here, attempt to justify the totally false beliefs you want to be accepted. Wasting your time w/ that. Never will it be accepted by mainstream society. Perhaps some day, before too late, you'll realize the delusion you've been under.