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.
But that really isn't the point. The point AGAIN, is that if we are going to allow people with exclusively same sex attraction to be treated "like normal people", then bi-sexual people who are in fact more numerous than exclusively homosexual people, should be also accorded full protection under The Law.
Are you aware of a situation where a bisexual would not be treated equally under the law, but a homosexual would? They certainly should be treated equally, no bones about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
A Triad should be just as valid as a couple and polygamous aggregations of up to half a dozen or more committed adults should not receive push-back when seeking to register their unions with Civil Authorities.
i agree with you on a idealistic level. In a perfect world civil unions or marriages would apply to any number of consenting adults.
But I recognize that the Law is pragmatic. The last time we started from scratch, it required a bloody revolution. Since then, we fix disparities in our moral outlook and the law through legislation which is imperfect and slow. Right now we have a concept of marriage in the law that is very difficult to extend to multiple people. Pragmatically, until someone with standing take a case to the supreme court or until the proponents of poly marriages can muster enough political will to influence elections, we will remain in the status quo.
So if the issue is important to you, by all means start advocating! At a minimum, we could stand to press our legistators to do better to be cognizant of the challenges faced by folks in poly relationships now, and avoid adding legal hurdles for those folks. But I think, given the iterative nature of non-revolutionary governmental changes, it is folly to argue that if we can't make a perfect system of governance overnight, that we have no business changing the one we have...
See, this is where I get stopped cold by the LBGT bluster. For good, bad or indifferent, society enacts rules and conventions for human behavior to hopefully result in an ordered society. Gay behavior has existed since there have been people but even people with same sex attraction have known that it was not a majority sexual presentation. It could be argued that a society that elevated same sex interaction on par with opposite sex interaction could one day see such interactions become the majority behavior. The number of people expressing an exclusively same sex attraction is at present rather low. I have no doubt that that is in large part due to the level of ostracism such behavior elicits. What happens when you take that away. I get that to a gay person this is the best of all possible outcomes. What if that is the wrong thing to do? Seriously. What if 2,000 years from now humanity finds itself done and dusted because there aren't enough breeding couples to get another generation going. Oh that can't happen? Think again.
Nice to see that you are predicting that 2000 years from now, gay people and SSM will be accepted everywhere.
Serious depopulation in that time will have to be dealt with by the people alive then. Today, we are not dealing with that problem, in fact the case is often made that there are too darn many of us already, which is affecting the quality of life for a large chunk of the world's population. Personally, I think it's more complicated than that, but we are not required to solve the problems of people living 2000 years in the future. Assuming of course that depopulation is a problem they will face. You and I have no way to predict that.
Passenger pigeons did not go extinct because they lost interest in reproduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
But that really isn't the point. The point AGAIN, is that if we are going to allow people with exclusively same sex attraction to be treated "like normal people", then bi-sexual people who are in fact more numerous than exclusively homosexual people, should be also accorded full protection under The Law. A Triad should be just as valid as a couple and polygamous aggregations of up to half a dozen or more committed adults should not receive push-back when seeking to register their unions with Civil Authorities.
Then polyamorous people are free to make that case, just as gay people have done for SSM. I see a lot of legal and financial issues that will need to be resolved, but gay people have met those objections to SSM well enough to convince most Americans that legally, it's no big deal. I'm open, in principle, to the idea of multiple-partner marriages, but I want to see how, for example, issues of parental responsibility, property rights, and inheritance would be resolved for such marriages.
Edited to add - to be perfectly clear, I am opposed to the old testament model of multiple-partner marriages.
That's the problem with your side's reasoning. You take a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Laws are not designed to accommodate every possible situation that a person can imagine so you can start with some basic exceptions like excluding religious beliefs that cause harm to people or property. Refusing a blood transfusion falls into that category. A wedding cake does not. Telling us that that discrimination must mean equal access to everything even if it stomps over someone's 1st amendment rights is not the way to go.
Of course because you have absolutely no problem when such digusting actions are taken against Christians. If it happens to the gay community, you make sure we never forget it like constantly reminding us about the tragedy of Matthew Sheppard.
Name one single time that I have had no problems with disgusting things being done to Christians. Unless you mean being forced to obey the law is disgusting. You still have not condemmed the death threats made to these two women and the reason I keep bringing it up is you have often lumped gays and their supporters with these death threats but not once have you condemmed the other threats, I wonder if they are just not important to you. I would hate to see any store put in a policy of not serving fundamentalist Christians as that would be totally wrong and disgusting. So you are totally wrong about me. In fact you are totally wrong about most of those who are opposed to you in this thread, we oppose your idea that it is fine to discriminate against those you do not agree with due to your beliefs in a business, read that as a secular setting. The bakery was a business ruled by secular laws. The baker has the right to view same sex marriage as immoral or disgusting , he does not have the right to refuse to sell his products to them though. Otherwise laws against discrimination would be you cannot discriminate agaisnt people you like or agree with and would be pointless.
You still fail to state what you would allow for discrmination. Did you support Muslim taxi drivers refusing to take passengers from an airport if they had either booze or a dog with them? A yes or no please.
So you exempt things that will harm people or property, but do not define harm. Does not renting to some one consist of harm or not? Do your freedom of religion rights apply to employees in either the public or private sector and if not why not? I have asked this question over and over and no one answers. If these rights are greater than the right not to be discrminated against then should they not apply to all people and not just business owners.
I deal with certain laws every day and the laws and regulations are very clear on what can or cannot be done. Without knowing what amount of discrimination is allowable in the Jeff and Vizio world how would anyone know if they are breaking the law or not? Not selling wedding cakes is allowed but not selling gas to a person who might be involved in blood transfusion is not allowed and all cases between that is ........ Is what?
I have said repeatedly it is not a Christian issue. How do you know that the two women are not Christians? Many of the supporters of same sex marriage are Christians, some Christian churches perform same sex marriage. Or anti Christian claim is bogus, it is only people against allowing gays and lesbians to enjoy full citizenship that we are rally against, not those who are willing for homosexuals to exist with full rights. I do not care if you agree or support same sex marriage but when you advocate discrimination against it I do care. I would not like to see no Jews allowed or no Negro allowed signs up again and what you are advocating would allow even though you do not think it would. I am not talking about a slippery slope, no if it is in some one's relgiious beliefs and not life threatening you think a store owner has the right to refuse service. The gas station I mentioned earlier could refuse to sell gas to a non Christian for example if they hold the beleif that not believing in Jesus as your saviour is immoral. Are you fine with that?
Bigotry disguised by hiding behind the legal system is still bigotry. I think it is a fair perception that a lot more bigotry against Christians now exists in this country than towards gays. Certainly in the mainstream media.
Bigotry disguised by hiding behind the legal system is still bigotry. I think it is a fair perception that a lot more bigotry against Christians now exists in this country than towards gays. Certainly in the mainstream media.
No longer being allowed to force your religious beliefs onto others /= bigotry against Christians.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
See, this is where I get stopped cold by the LBGT bluster. For good, bad or indifferent, society enacts rules and conventions for human behavior to hopefully result in an ordered society. Gay behavior has existed since there have been people but even people with same sex attraction have known that it was not a majority sexual presentation. It could be argued that a society that elevated same sex interaction on par with opposite sex interaction could one day see such interactions become the majority behavior. The number of people expressing an exclusively same sex attraction is at present rather low. I have no doubt that that is in large part due to the level of ostracism such behavior elicits. What happens when you take that away. I get that to a gay person this is the best of all possible outcomes. What if that is the wrong thing to do? Seriously. What if 2,000 years from now humanity finds itself done and dusted because there aren't enough breeding couples to get another generation going. Oh that can't happen? Think again.
But that really isn't the point. The point AGAIN, is that if we are going to allow people with exclusively same sex attraction to be treated "like normal people", then bi-sexual people who are in fact more numerous than exclusively homosexual people, should be also accorded full protection under The Law. A Triad should be just as valid as a couple and polygamous aggregations of up to half a dozen or more committed adults should not receive push-back when seeking to register their unions with Civil Authorities.
Ok, so?
If consenting willing adults want to be in any sort of relationship, who cares? Just because you and I view those relationships as ones that we would not want to be in, as long as there is consent, what does it matter to you, I or society how many and of what sex a permanent relationship looks like?
Bigotry disguised by hiding behind the legal system is still bigotry. I think it is a fair perception that a lot more bigotry against Christians now exists in this country than towards gays. Certainly in the mainstream media.
Bigotry disguised by hiding behind the legal system is still bigotry. I think it is a fair perception that a lot more bigotry against Christians now exists in this country than towards gays. Certainly in the mainstream media.
Really?!?
How many County Clerks deny marriage licenses based on a couple's Christianity? Oh, I know... 0!
How many pediatricians are turning away children because their parents are Christian? Could it be... 0?
Can an employer legally fire someone simply for being a Christian? Wait, I can't hear you... Was that a no?
Can a landlord evict or refuse to rent to a Christian simply for being a Christian? Is there a pattern here?
What you are seeing is a very vocal reaction to a clearly unjust and inequitable legal arrangement. But while homosexuals are still suffering from very real harm from unjust laws, you have what? People talking about you. As best I can tell Christians have not received any inequitable treatment in the legal system or from the government. They are simply receiving the backlash of public opinion. People talking.
You are trying to compare systematic denial of equal treatment under the law to your hurt fee-fees. Come on, pull the other one... Please...
Really?!?
How many County Clerks deny marriage licenses based on a couple's Christianity? Oh, I know... 0!
How many pediatricians are turning away children because their parents are Christian? Could it be... 0?
Can an employer legally fire someone simply for being a Christian? Wait, I can't hear you... Was that a no?
Can a landlord evict or refuse to rent to a Christian simply for being a Christian? Is there a pattern here?
What you are seeing is a very vocal reaction to a clearly unjust and inequitable legal arrangement. But while homosexuals are still suffering from very real harm from unjust laws, you have what? People talking about you. As best I can tell Christians have not received any inequitable treatment in the legal system or from the government. They are simply receiving the backlash of public opinion. People talking.
You are trying to compare systematic denial of equal treatment under the law to your hurt fee-fees. Come on, pull the other one... Please...
-NoCapo
Bigotry is still bigotry, though. We have seen an increase of it on this very message board in the past year. The fact that this thread is about rejoicing over the fascist bigotry that forces a Christian couple to pay a fine of $135,000 for daring to open their mouths is a major example.
Bigotry disguised by hiding behind the legal system is still bigotry. I think it is a fair perception that a lot more bigotry against Christians now exists in this country than towards gays. Certainly in the mainstream media.
lol! It's like saying that the end of slavery was bigotry toward the slave owners
I'll tell you this. If, upon death, we have to answer to a higher power for what we did in our lives on earth, I sure would rather be in my shoes than yours Dedicating you life toward hating fellow humans is just pathetic.
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.
Dedicating you life toward hating fellow humans is just pathetic.
