|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
In perspective, making this minor adjustment to marriage - an adjustment that has NO EFFECT on heterosexual marriage - is the easiest and simplest way. Defining a whole new status and amending every law and regulation to fit it would seem to be a whole lot more effort.
Really it's the obvious simple solution, and there don't seem to be any good objections to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That would obviously leave the family - including the children - at a disadvantage. A considerable disadvantage in some cases, such as if anything were to happen to the natural parent. If the benefits of marriage are valuable for raising children, why deny them to gay couples with children ? While allowing childless heterosexual couples to enjoy the benefits?
quote: Answered before it was asked. Message 1146
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And you wonder why people think you're a bigot ? Your personal feelings on the matter don't change the facts. There are real injustices. Giving legal recognition to gay marriage is a simple and effective way of countering these injustices. And if that upsets you, too bad. Keep your religious rules for your Churches marriages, where they belong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Oh, of course you don't want to know. There are times when you almost make me wish that Christianity was true. But I'm not that cruel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
What on earth can it mean to say that "marriage is an objective social institution" ? Or at least that can help you. It is objectively true that marriage is a social institution and in a secular state the secular institution of marriage as a legal institution should serve the secular needs of society.
And in the US that is the way that it is supposed to be. The courts are correct to disregard arguments that do not address those issues. Again, if you want religious marriage with religious rules go to your church. Your church can refuse a church wedding to anyone they disapprove of for whatever reasons seem good to them. And that is the way it should be, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Then produce an objectively demonstrable, rational argument against gay marriage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Except that in THIS case the baker agreed to do everything but the offensive slogans. The cake and the inoffensive decorations WERE offered. That is quite a difference, and may be sufficient in itself to give this case a different outcome.
Also, I think he'd have a big problem arguing that anti-gay bigots are a protected class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
But is he being discriminated against because of his religious beliefs ? This case is much less clear-cut than the cases Faith complained about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The point is that nowhere have we seen that the right to equal services goes so far as to demand the right to have absolutely any decoration on the cake desired.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith why do you keep talking about the First Amendment ? It doesn't give you any rights that the Segregationists didn't have. You accept that the laws were Constitutional when they gave Blacks the right to service, overriding the religious beliefs of the Segregationists. You have no legal reasoning that would allow a different outcome - I know, I asked.
So really, you've accepted that First Amendment rights are NOT being violated here. So why keep harping on about it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
And now you're lying Faith. The Segregationists - or many of them at least - were conservative Christians who argued that segregation was their Christian belief. So I am arguing on the basis of beliefs that Christians at the least claimed to hold at the time the laws were passed. And in fact, a former member here, now deceased, was one of these Christians.
What is more, the First Amendment does not single out Christianity for special protection, nor has it ever been the case that it gives a free pass to actions motivated by religious belief. Belief is given unconditional protection, actions receive much more limited protection. That's why a religious belief that the races should remain separate is not a valid legal excuse for excluding Blacks, or Asians or anyone from a business. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: The "interesting things" ARE "evil revisionist reinterpretations that destroy it's whole purpose." In reality Jefferson himself argued for protection of Islam, and the idea that Catholics were excluded is absurd. The Bill of Rights was about guaranteeing freedom. The whole idea that it meant to permit a Protestant tyranny as you assert is a clear example of revisionism.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024