Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 725 of 1484 (803299)
03-28-2017 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 722 by Tangle
03-28-2017 7:50 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
You can't abide a difference of opinion.
(*chuckle*)
"I'm your friend!"
"Friends don't treat friends that way."
"You can't abide my difference of opinion on how friends treat each other!"
As if you get to tell another person that you're their friend. They are the final arbiter of who their friends are. When they tell you that you're not their friend, you don't get to contradict them.
quote:
Like I say, by exhibiting your intolerance of diference as violently and as crudely as you do
(*chuckle*)
"Violently"? Sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat, you have no idea what that word means.
And it's cute that you think telling someone that their fight for dignity and respect is "petty" and "artificial" isn't "crude."
quote:
you risk alienating those that are on your side of the main argument.
That's just it, Tangle:
You're not on my side. You value lives based upon the monetary return of a lawsuit. You hear that someone is discriminated against and you call them "petty" for doing something about it, ranting about how it's "artificial." You can't actually provide any example of this sort of thing, but you know its out there because you were told it happens...and even worse actions that you can't actually describe, either.
So I don't care about alienating you.
You were never an ally.
And on the flip side: I am hardly the Grand High Pooh-Bah of anti-discrimination policy. If you get alienated because of little old me, then you weren't really an ally to begin with. All I've done is responded to your claim of, "I'm an ally!" with, "Eh...not so much." Are your pwecious fee-fees are so fragile that they cannot withstand a single person merely looking askance? Exactly how does that make you an ally if you can't even bear some nobody disagreeing with you?
Hey! Wasn't that what you just said? "You can't abide a difference of opinion"? Yeah, you did! You did say that just now.
Wow...who'da thunk you would get hoisted on your own petard?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 722 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2017 7:50 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2017 5:00 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 727 of 1484 (803309)
03-28-2017 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by PaulK
03-28-2017 3:40 PM


Re: No case at al
PaulK runs away:
quote:
First, as we have seen you complain that I won't run away.
No, we've seen me point out that all you're doing is running away.
quote:
Second I have already produced an argument that you are misinterpreting my argument and it has clearly been ignored.
Except you haven't. All you've done is say, "Nuh-uh!" and "I wasn't talking about that!" as if that were a response. Despite being shown precisely what it is that you did say, you then claim that I am somehow lying about what you said. Despite multiple opportunities to engage and clarify what it is you meant so that you aren't misinterpreted, you've avoided doing so at all costs.
quote:
Third doubling down on the bad behaviour when the moderator has called for an attempt to find common ground deserves sanction.
BWAHAHAHA!
The irony is strong in you, isn't it? Are you voluntarily submitting yourself to sanction? After all, can you find anything in your post that is an example of "an attempt to find common ground"?
To that end: Where's the common ground? If you're saying 2 + 2 = 5 and I'm insisting it's 4, it does nobody any good to insist upon "common ground" by saying is 4.5.
You say one thing. I say another. We could call the whole thing off or you could keep at it. This is entirely in your hands, PaulK. If there is no common ground to be found, why do you keep at it? Fifth time, PaulK: You could simply stop responding.
quote:
And fourth the next time you wish to attempt to respond to one of my points please don't waste everyone's time. Whether you are simply incapable or just trolling I don't care.
That. That right there. That's you running away.
Does Faith get to be the final arbiter on what she believes or not?
Even if you were to convince Faith that the Bible doesn't say what she thinks it says, if you were merely able to get her to consider the possibility and agree that there are other people who are just as Christian as she is who disagree with her, what then? What happens next? Both in terms of her faith and in terms of her position on discrimination against gays?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 3:40 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 728 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 4:43 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 796 of 1484 (803554)
04-02-2017 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 738 by Faith
03-29-2017 2:46 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Faith writes:
quote:
It's the concept, the definition of marriage that is destroyed. Marriage was instituted for a man and a woman, who are designed to become "one flesh" as the Bible defines marriage. This has been said so many times on this thread I don't get why it needs to be repeated.
"It's the concept, the definition of marriage that is destroyed. Marriage was instituted for whites, who are designed to become 'one flesh' as the Bible defines marriage. This has been said so many times on this thread, I don't get why it needs to be repeated."
Yeah...sounds racist, doesn't it? And yet, that was exactly what it was here in the US. Blacks were not allowed to get married at all. Forget to white people: Marriage was only for whites.
And the Bible was used to justify this stance.
So was marriage "destroyed" when that was overturned?
Was marriage "destroyed" when the Biblical definition of "same-race" was determined to be unconstitutional and the legal definition was expanded to ignore race?
Are Muslim marriages "destroying" it? What about Hindu or Shinto?
Do you get a religious exemption to the law?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 738 by Faith, posted 03-29-2017 2:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 799 of 1484 (803558)
04-02-2017 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 736 by Faith
03-29-2017 2:15 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Faith writes:
quote:
A little creative thought could have provided such protections without destroying the role of marriage. The goal WAS the destruction of marriage, even if you don't quite share that goal yourself. In any case there could have been other solutions but a vindictive spirit against Christanity was more important than those supposed benefits. For health insurance there is even a Christian model that has created a pool people pay into to take care of catastrophic illnesses. Surely the LGBT community could have come up with something like that. There are other forms of contracts than marriage too. But no, the whole point was to kill marriage.
Nice try, but that is so bogus.
All of those things were tried. After all, there was no marriage. But the problem is that it is both prohibitively expensive to do those things (power of attorney, wills, trusts, etc., all cost money) as well as not recognized by the courts. If you try to leave everything you have to a non-relative, your relatives can sue to have your will overturned citing fraud and corruption, claiming that you were not of sound mind.
And it works. Judges routinely overturned wills of gay couples since they were of the opinion that there was no such thing as being gay, that it was mental illness.
Not to mention the fact that some things simply cannot be covered by such things. The marriage contract specifically provides rights that cannot be acquired through any other way: Suppose you and I are roommates. If the house is in my name and I die, I cannot simply will it to you without financial penalty. We're not next-of-kin the way we would be if we were married and thus, you'd face inheritance taxes for accepting it. You are now facing eviction.
And that ignores the family trying to contest that bequest, as mentioned before.
And if it's a rent-controlled apartment, I can't leave it to you.
That you think health insurance equals "catastrophic" coverage, you clearly don't understand what health insurance means. We already saw this happen during the 80s and 90s with HIV. It didn't work then. What makes you think it'll work now?
So why not have a "civil union"? Why do you have to call it "marriage"? It'll have all the rights and benefits of "marriage" but will save that word for Christians (you can see the obvious problem right there, can't you? We'll come back to that.)
Because we tried that, too. After the Vermont Supreme Court said that denying the rights of marriage to gay people, they ordered the legislature to come up with a solution that provided all the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples and the Vermont legislature came up with "civil unions." But there was a problem: There were discrepancies between the two. California tried the same thing, too. But the courts found that there were many discrepancies between the two and thus a "civil union" was not the legal equivalent of a "marriage."
And that doesn't even get into the problem that they don't cross state lines. If you get a civil union in one state, that means nothing to any other state. Thus, it isn't the same as marriage.
And that also doesn't get into the problem that the feds don't recognize civil unions. If you get a civil union, you don't get any of the federal rights of marriage such as being able to file jointly. Thus, it isn't the same as marriage.
Legally, if two things are not named the same, then they are not the same thing. They can be treated like different things. We learned that when we tried "separate but equal" doesn't work.
And, of course, there's the original problem: If your complaint is that your religious attitude is offended because someone else has entered into a legal contract called "marriage," that is a direct violation of the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion. Do people who aren't Christian get to be married? Or is "marriage" only for Christians?
If it's truly the word that's the problem, then you as the one who is offended over a legal contract are free to come up with some other contract that satisfies you. I know! "Holy matrimony." It has the benefit that everybody already knows what it means and directly puts forward that you're talking about a religious ceremony, not a legal one.
As people keep asking you, Faith: Why does the legal contract between other people affect you?
Why is it so hard for someone who has a desire to discriminate against people to become a private contractor? You get to pick and choose your clients when you're a private contractor. Why do you feel the need to force the public square to your whim? Do you honestly not understand that if you get to do it to others, then they get to do it to you?
Be honest, Faith: When your faith becomes the minority, will you agree with them when they start to discriminate against you? If the majority in this country were some other religion, would you accept being told that no, you can't purchase this or rent that or lease the other because you're "one of those"? Or will you demand that you not be denied services because of your religion?
Don't you think other people feel the same way?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 736 by Faith, posted 03-29-2017 2:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 810 by Faith, posted 04-02-2017 6:14 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 800 of 1484 (803559)
04-02-2017 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 729 by Tangle
03-28-2017 5:00 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Faith writes:
quote:
I'm on the side of tolerance
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, that's rich. That's just precious. You honestly believe that, don't you?
A person who writes the following:
Message 41:
Similarly, why ask a right-wing fundamentalist jerk-off to bake you a cake if you're queer? Some people are just looking for a fight.
Message 73:
There are activist gays that think that they can make progress by outing law breaking bigots.
Message 121:
It's a matter of tactics what approach you take to do that but misplaced activism may do more harm than good.
Message 129:
There's planty of real campaigns to be fought by whatever means without taking principled stands against bigots that just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive.
...
Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.
Message 136:
Just for completeness, I'm saying that I believe that it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes - to go actively looking for them to make examples. Pick more strategic targets, make a point of standing above the bigots not simply against them and impress reasoned and reasonable people with your cause and demeaner.
Message 143:
LGBTs have won the major argument, so don't go around deliberately targeting baking bigots, it doesn't look good.
Message 152:
Yet you're behaving like a total arsehole. How do you think that plays with your real opponants?
Is not on the side of tolerance.
They're a bigot, pure and simple.
Unfortunately, you are judged by your statements and how wrong they are. The LGBT community doesn't need your "help" no matter who much you claim to be an ally.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2017 5:00 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 807 by Faith, posted 04-02-2017 6:04 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 814 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2017 7:37 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 801 of 1484 (803560)
04-02-2017 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 730 by Phat
03-28-2017 5:44 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Phat responds to me:
quote:
To begin, I have not thoroughly read these cases
Hold it right there.
What makes you think you're about to have anything constructive to say? You admit that you know absolutely nothing about the cases, so what makes you think you're in a position to speak on the subject with any modicum of intelligence or compassion?
Before you respond, you need to think carefully about this: You deliberately, consciously, and purposefully decided to insult people over something you admit you know nothing about.
Can you really be surprised at the response that's coming? Before you complain about how you're being treated, think about how you treated the people in these cases based upon your ignorance of their lives.
quote:
Wiping out someone's livelihood and putting their family on the street is a lot more serious than being butthurt because you were unable to have the wedding of your dreams.
You know what's coming, Phat:
Fuck you.
"Butthurt"? You think this is just over "the wedding of your dreams"? Right, being told that you're a sinner, that your entire relationship is an abomination, another in a long line of bigots who try to make your life a living hell is trivial. Being doxxed and having your personal information posted on social media is trivial. Having them gloat over their refusal is just over "dreams." No real harm done. This is over the trappings.
Remember what you said about not having read these cases? Why did you immediately assume that the people suing were engaging in nefarious purposes rather than having a legitimate cause? Why the knee-jerk reaction? Don't you think that says something about your opinion of gay people?
What's the point of having laws to protect gay people against discrimination, of having penalties that are significant, if it means you're "butthurt" if you dare to make use of them? Exactly how do bigots learn to stop engaging in bigotry if the consequences for it are always second-guessed and the penalties considered too harsh?
quote:
The point of the lawsuit would be to show that the offense was serious.
How were they not?
Remember: You don't know anything about the cases.
quote:
Insisting upon huge monetary awards only hurts other people.
How?
Remember, you don't know anything about the cases.
Hint: Did the plaintiffs have any say in the judgement?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by Phat, posted 03-28-2017 5:44 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 802 of 1484 (803561)
04-02-2017 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 731 by Modulous
03-28-2017 6:50 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Modulous writes:
quote:
No livelihood was wiped out. The only significant fine was to the Klein's. They decided to stop their public accommodation.
And let's not forget, they decided to create multiple crowdfunding campaigns that raised more than three times the amount of the fine.
Not only was no livelihood wiped out, they received a windfall for their crime.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 731 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2017 6:50 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 1021 of 1484 (824977)
12-05-2017 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1020 by NoNukes
12-05-2017 10:53 AM


Re: Even Stupid Cases Make it to the Supreme Court
NoNukes writes:
quote:
It is discrimination, pure and simple, and Mr. Phillips, in a just world, would lose the case. My guess is that he will lose a very close vote. However, it is a vote that could and like would go another way if Kennedy or one of the very old Justices (like Ginsburg) retires during a Trump presidency.
Indeed, because this question has been before the Supreme Court twice and both times was slapped down: There is no religious exemption to anti-discrimination statutes.
There was a BBQ place, Piggie Park, that claimed a religious exemption to the Civil Rights Act. They didn't want to serve black people. The Court dismissed the case as "patently frivolous in an 8-0 ruling:
Indeed, this is not even a borderline case, for the respondents interposed defenses so patently frivolous that a denial of counsel fees to the petitioners would be manifestly inequitable. Thus, for example, the fact that the defendants had discriminated both at [the] drive-ins and at [the sandwich shop] was . . . denied . . . [although] the defendants could not and did not undertake at the trial to support their denials. Includable in the same category are defendants’ contention, twice pleaded after the decision in Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, . . . that the Act was unconstitutional on the very grounds foreclosed by McClung, and defendants’ contention that the Act was invalid because it ‘contravenes the will of God’ and constitutes an interference with the ‘free exercise of the Defendant’s religion.'
And indeed, Bob Jones University tried to claim a religious exemption to civil rights legislation by denying interracial couples which the Supreme Court slapped down 8-1.
That this is even close shows just how corrupt Republicans have become.
One possible outcome depends upon just how prickly Kennedy decides to be. He (and a few others) were very upset that a member of the Colorado civil rights commission made the following comment:
And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to to use their religion to hurt others
The baker's case included a claim that this somehow indicated that there was anti-Christian bias on the part of the commission...and Kennedy was kinda buying it.
But this is precisely the right position: The Supreme Court has already resoundly denounced the idea that religious beliefs can trump the civil rights of others as has been pointed out. So from a strictly constitutional-law basis, it is "despicable" that someone would try to come before the courts to claim that they have the right to a religious exemption to anti-discrimination regulations...a demonstrable harm to others.
But, Kennedy is all about "dignity" and he's getting the vapors that somebody might actually be offended at being called out for violations of the law.
And thus, what this means is that he might send it back to the lower courts to be re-adjudicated.
And thus, we'll have yet another five years of limbo instead of them just doing the right thing right now and stop delaying justice. Of course, from the Supreme Court's point of view, this is a good thing because if the opinion of the country regarding gay people being seen as actual persons deserving of equal treatment under the law and full protections of the Fourteenth Amendment becomes stronger, then their decision to actually do that won't be so "controversial."
And even worse, he might pull a Hobby Lobby and rule against gay people and attempt to bullshit his way out of the clear implications by saying that this ruling "doesn't apply to race"...despite the fact that the very regulation the baker is fighting specifically equates race and sexual orientation (and sex and....) Because that is the point: Can we regulate behaviour in order to prevent discrimination? The Court has regularly said yes. So if we carve out a religious exemption with regard to sexual orientation, why not any of the other categories? What is the difference? If you can allow discrimination against gay people based upon a religious veto, why not discrimination against blacks? Or Jews? Or Christians?
Because the Court can simply say, "Because." That the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to gay people.
One of the most ridiculous things that happened was the exchanges regarding other types of businesses...what about makeup artists? The baker's argument was that they weren't artists. "But it has 'artist' right in the name."
The correct decision is, indeed, clear: 9-0, there is no religious exemption to anti-discrimination statutes.
If we are lucky, it will be 5-4.
And justice will die just a little bit because of that.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1020 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2017 10:53 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1024 by dwise1, posted 12-06-2017 1:56 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 1022 of 1484 (824978)
12-05-2017 9:11 PM


And on top of that...
The Supreme Court refused to take up the Texas case that ruled that while Texas cannot stop gay people from getting married, they don't have to provide any of the benefits of marriage to them.
This now means that the case will be tried in Texas (this was essentially a procedural point at the current time), but it does show that the Court, once again, doesn't have the courage of its convictions. Despite the fact the Obergefell decision expressly states that gay couples cannot be denied any of the benefits of marriage, they decided to punt so that we now have to go through years of trial and delayed justice just so that the case can wind up right back at the Supreme Court and we have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with the conservative members of the Court such that they can rule that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to gay people.
And in the meantime...Kennedy will step down and if Trump is still in the White House, think of who he will appoint.
So for all of you who thought that Clinton wasn't "good enough," a hearty "FUCK YOU." Would we be in this position if Gorsich were not on the Court?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1023 by NoNukes, posted 12-06-2017 12:47 AM Rrhain 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