Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 268 of 759 (652907)
02-16-2012 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Rahvin
02-16-2012 5:58 PM


But the reality is that public opinion is lethargic, and often needs a push from the courts to move things along.
Perhaps it is the older generations that need a push into the grave before public opinion changes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Rahvin, posted 02-16-2012 5:58 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by subbie, posted 02-16-2012 6:26 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 270 by Rahvin, posted 02-16-2012 6:35 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 539 of 759 (702838)
07-11-2013 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Faith
07-11-2013 12:03 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
And again, where do "rights" enter into behavior that is socially and naturally aberrant? It is not I defining it so, it is history, all time and all cultures, which have defined it so. Again, shall we give rights to pedophiles too? You all insist there is no connection but there is: you are redefining something that was always considered to be aberrant as normal, something never contemplated by any sane society until very recently, so it is fair in the effort to get this across to you to point out that there are other "sexual orientations" besides homosexuality that you aren't quite ready to define as normal.
We have always defined this society as being free. This requires us to continually throw out discrimination when it comes to light. This means that we should favor the rights of people over your sense of what is or isn't natural. At one time it was though unnatural for someone to marry outside of their race. We got rid of that as well, and now we are attempting to get rid of discrimination aimed at sexual orientation.
At some point you need to realize that people should be able to lead their own lives as they see fit, not as you see fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 12:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 575 of 759 (702917)
07-12-2013 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by Faith
07-11-2013 8:48 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
It's the principle of the thing, fact that men and women together can make babies unless they aren't fertile. Marriage is for a man and a woman, period, whether they have the current capacity to make babies or not, and clearly this is because they were designed to fit together and make babies.
Marriage has nothing to do with making babies. On top of that, homosexual couples are raising children together as we speak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 8:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 576 of 759 (702918)
07-12-2013 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by Faith
07-12-2013 11:55 AM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Nobody is objecting to homosexual unions that are established spontaneously or with rituals of any sort that don't involve redefining marriage for the state or the whole society.
No one is redefining marriage for the whole of society. If a couple says that they are married then all we are asking is that the state accept their claim and treat them the same as other couples who claim the same. It is society defining marriage for itself. It is couples deciding for themselves if they want to be married or not.
If you want, you can personally decide that they are not married. That's fine. No one is trying to force you to accept them as being married.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 11:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 577 of 759 (702919)
07-12-2013 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 573 by Faith
07-12-2013 4:44 PM


Re: Can't we just go back to "traditional" marriages?
Christian law WAS the law of the US and the UK and many European countries, and still is to some extent;
That's hilarious given that the First Amendment tells everyone that they are free to ignore the First Commandment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 4:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 589 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 10:34 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


(8)
Message 627 of 759 (704713)
08-14-2013 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 620 by Faith
07-14-2013 6:30 PM


Re: Attempt went far afield...
Where did you actually prove that the argument is not based on history?
Why does history even matter? Why do we have to do something a certain way just because we have always done it that way? If we are going to use the history argument, then we wouldn't have democracies or modern western culture at all.
So why can't we change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 6:30 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 628 by Rahvin, posted 08-14-2013 5:55 PM Taq 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