Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Church and Homosexual Marriage
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 63 (189511)
03-01-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 10:05 AM


quote:
yes, but the majority is christian, and since 51% of the country rules the other 49% that is all that is needed.
Minorities, both racial, moral, and political, are afforded protection from the majority because of the Constitution. If something is unconstitutional, either at the state or federal level, it doesn't matter how much of the country agrees or disagrees with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 10:05 AM Vercingetorix has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by coffee_addict, posted 03-01-2005 4:50 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 32 of 63 (189513)
03-01-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Loudmouth
03-01-2005 4:30 PM


Here is something for people who thinks the will of the majority should be regarded as the will of the almighty. It is in everybody's best interest to give rights to minority groups. This is because everybody belong to some sort of minority group. The fact that I am a guy puts me into a minority group.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Loudmouth, posted 03-01-2005 4:30 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 33 of 63 (189518)
03-01-2005 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 2:23 PM


Re: Democracy Rules?
Vercingetorix writes:
that is for citizens, no one answered the question above if the arabic peoples in question were citizens or not, if they were they would be called americans so i am guess they are not, and therefore not coverd by that amendment.
In the example I was using I meant that they would be American citizens of Arabic descent. I apologize for the confusion that you had to deal with. Sometimes in my haste to make a point I am not absolutely clear in my communication.
Come to think of it though, what does that really matter? It would be ok to round up any non-citizen (passport and visa in hand) and cart them off to a stockade? Is that your implication by such a flippant remark?
The very issue of homosexual marriage is about the rights of the individual.
Example: Even if we were married for only one day, my wife cannot be compelled to testify against me in a court of law. That recognizes the intimate relationship (we know a lot about each other) we have and does not force her to break that relationship.
A homosexual couple, even if they've lived together for 25 years, do not have that protection. Shouldn't that be considered a violation of their intimate relationship to force (by threat of contempt of court...fines and jail) testimony from one against the other?
What part of your or the church's rights are violated by allowing them to be married?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 2:23 PM Vercingetorix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by coffee_addict, posted 03-01-2005 6:12 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 35 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 6:36 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 45 by custard, posted 03-02-2005 2:38 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 34 of 63 (189522)
03-01-2005 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by LinearAq
03-01-2005 5:52 PM


Re: Democracy Rules?
Linear writes:
What part of your or the church's rights are violated by allowing them to be married?
This is like asking a white southerner in the 50's and 60's what rights of the white southerners the gov would violate by ending segregation. The answer should be obvious to thinking people by now, but I guess it will take a while for people to get out of the bigotted mindset.
By the way, I encourage you to get into this discussion with riVeRaT, one of our more famous anti-gay marriage amendments proponents. He will give an answer that will give you a unique perspective into the mindset of a very convinced bigot. I must admit that his answers to a lot of these questions are very original.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by LinearAq, posted 03-01-2005 5:52 PM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 6:40 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 63 (189530)
03-01-2005 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by LinearAq
03-01-2005 5:52 PM


Re: Democracy Rules?
What part of your or the church's rights are violated by allowing them to be married?
i don't know, i don think the church has any business in this matter. im talking about the power of the voters, try and put words into my mouth if you want to...
if the majority of a states citizen's are against it and the federal government enforces it any way because. then that is tyrrany and its time for action. whether California wants to leagalize pot, or Alaska was to drill in ANWR, or Missouri wants to out-law same sex marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by LinearAq, posted 03-01-2005 5:52 PM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-02-2005 9:17 AM Vercingetorix has replied
 Message 49 by Loudmouth, posted 03-02-2005 5:15 PM Vercingetorix has not replied

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 63 (189531)
03-01-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by coffee_addict
03-01-2005 6:12 PM


WTF?
The answer should be obvious to thinking people by now, but I guess it will take a while for people to get out of the bigotted mindset.
what are you implying?
He will give an answer that will give you a unique perspective into the mindset of a very convinced bigot.
WOW when i did something like this the admins came out and said
from the guidelines: Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. and then they gave me a link to the rules page. BTW that is rule number 3.
these boards are F'ed up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by coffee_addict, posted 03-01-2005 6:12 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by coffee_addict, posted 03-01-2005 8:10 PM Vercingetorix has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 37 of 63 (189547)
03-01-2005 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 6:40 PM


Re: WTF?
Ver writes:
what are you implying?
You are reading too much into my words.
WOW when i did something like this the admins came out and said
from the guidelines: Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. and then they gave me a link to the rules page. BTW that is rule number 3.
Um... there's nothing wrong saying someone is a bigot. I'm a bigot myself. Everybody is a bigot of some sort.
In the context of "bigot" that I was using, I was referring to the type of bigotry against homosexuals.
I seem to recall that he once admitted to being one. Can't insult someone if that person admits to being something.
You are reading too much into my words. Just take my words at their face value and nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 6:40 PM Vercingetorix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-02-2005 9:08 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 63 (189606)
03-02-2005 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by coffee_addict
03-01-2005 8:10 PM


Re: WTF?
Ver writes:
what are you implying?
You are reading too much into my words.
WOW when i did something like this the admins came out and said
from the guidelines: Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. and then they gave me a link to the rules page. BTW that is rule number 3.
Um... there's nothing wrong saying someone is a bigot. I'm a bigot myself. Everybody is a bigot of some sort.
In the context of "bigot" that I was using, I was referring to the type of bigotry against homosexuals.
I seem to recall that he once admitted to being one. Can't insult someone if that person admits to being something.
You are reading too much into my words. Just take my words at their face value and nothing more.
well i have never met him or seen any of his posts, now i know he's a bigot though thanks, i guess i can call him one on the bases that he called himself one, so i guess i could also call a nigger a nigger when he refers to himself as one. somehow i don't think that will work.
you have interesting logic
so basically im a nigger, and everyone is a nigger of some sort, i mean we all evolved from niggers in africa, right?
This message has been edited by Vercingetorix, 03-02-2005 09:09 AM
This message has been edited by Vercingetorix, 03-02-2005 09:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by coffee_addict, posted 03-01-2005 8:10 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by coffee_addict, posted 03-02-2005 11:14 PM Vercingetorix has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 63 (189607)
03-02-2005 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 6:36 PM


Re: Democracy Rules?
if the majority of a states citizen's are against it and the federal government enforces it any way because. then that is tyrrany and its time for action.
Then mobilize the people against the fourteenth amendment. You seem to have a big problem with this whole "everyone in the country will be treated equally" thing; take action!

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 6:36 PM Vercingetorix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-02-2005 9:20 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 63 (189609)
03-02-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dan Carroll
03-02-2005 9:17 AM


Re: Democracy Rules?
Then mobilize the people against the fourteenth amendment. You seem to have a big problem with this whole "everyone in the country will be treated equally" thing; take action!
proabably because not everyone is and it is an oxymoron that everyone will be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-02-2005 9:17 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-02-2005 9:33 AM Vercingetorix has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 63 (189612)
03-02-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Vercingetorix
03-02-2005 9:20 AM


Re: Democracy Rules?
proabably because not everyone is and it is an oxymoron that everyone will be.
Okay, you do know what "oxymoron" means, right? I ask because to use it in this context is kind of a verbal abortion.
Regardless, you still haven't explained your problem with following the Constitution. The fact that, in your view, it's violated in certain areas doesn't mean it doesn't apply when a specific matter is taken to the courts.

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-02-2005 9:20 AM Vercingetorix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-02-2005 9:35 AM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 43 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-02-2005 9:41 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 63 (189613)
03-02-2005 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dan Carroll
03-02-2005 9:33 AM


Re: Democracy Rules?
yeah its before my morning coffee i totally fucked that up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-02-2005 9:33 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 63 (189616)
03-02-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dan Carroll
03-02-2005 9:33 AM


Re: Democracy Rules?
Regardless, you still haven't explained your problem with following the Constitution
i just think that the constitution more of an ideal than a legal document. its like the US political bible, if it were followed to the letter and the spirit then this would be a much better place for all, but like the holy bible the US constitution is misread, misused, and totally ignored, by people. it is sorta becoming a joke. i hear people talk about the bill of rights yet those amedments have been butchered recently and no longer hold the weight that they once did. i have no problem following the constitution, its just that i don't believe it is being followed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-02-2005 9:33 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-02-2005 10:11 AM Vercingetorix has not replied
 Message 46 by berberry, posted 03-02-2005 3:23 PM Vercingetorix has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 63 (189626)
03-02-2005 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Vercingetorix
03-02-2005 9:41 AM


Re: Democracy Rules?
i just think that the constitution more of an ideal than a legal document.
Okay, that's your first problem, then. The Constitution is not only a legal document, it is the final arbiter in all legal decisions.
You might want to think of it another way, but... well, sorry. It's just not the case.
it is sorta becoming a joke. i hear people talk about the bill of rights yet those amedments have been butchered recently and no longer hold the weight that they once did.
How do you figure?
i have no problem following the constitution, its just that i don't believe it is being followed.
Then why are you advocating a gross violation of the Constitution, in reccomending that certain states be allowed to forbid same-sex marriage?

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-02-2005 9:41 AM Vercingetorix has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 63 (189667)
03-02-2005 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by LinearAq
03-01-2005 5:52 PM


Re: Democracy Rules?
linear writes:
Example: Even if we were married for only one day, my wife cannot be compelled to testify against me in a court of law. That recognizes the intimate relationship (we know a lot about each other) we have and does not force her to break that relationship.
That's a pretty good example. I want to add the caveat as an fyi, which does not undermine your example in the slightest, that your wife actually could be compelled to testify against you for anything you did BEFORE or AFTER you were married, just not something you did while you were married.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by LinearAq, posted 03-01-2005 5:52 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024