|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The ulitmate sin: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost | |||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Tal writes:
quote: Yes it does, because in order to take advantage of the right some people would be required to lie while others would not. That's discrimination. You're using precisely the same logic that was used to outlaw interracial marriage: black people could marry anyone of their own race, same as white people. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5698 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
You're using precisely the same logic that was used to outlaw interracial marriage: black people could marry anyone of their own race, same as white people. How is that? Hetersexual A: Has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Homosexual B: Has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. White Person A: Has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Black Person B: Has the right to marry a member fo the opposite sex. Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Tal bleats:
quote: Today this is true. But just a few decades ago it wasn't. Even back then, blacks and whites had the same marriage rights: everyone was free to marry a member of their own race. Marriage laws were changed to accomodate those who didn't want to live by someone else's moral code in violation of the fourteenth amendment. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5698 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Marriage laws were changed to accomodate those who didn't want to live by someone else's moral code in violation of the fourteenth amendment. Then your recourse is to have your representatives amend the constitution. And was it really in the constitution that interracial marriage was a no/go? Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Also, as I don't live in America, I have no knowledge of what benefits are given to married couples in America. Would you mind summarizing these 'tax benefits' that homosexuals are missing out on for me? Actually, the tax issue is a Red Herring. It's another example of the Christian Right blowing smoke. The bigg discrimination is in other areas. For example in the US all Health Insurance is through private companies. There is no Government Health Care System like there is in most civilized nations. The source for most Health Care is through contracts with the employer. The employer has a group policy that covers employees. In most cases there is a Family Policy available that can extend coverage to other members of the family. Since a marriage is not recognized between same sex-couples, they are not eligible for that family coverage. A second big issue has to do with protection against violence. Legaly a married person has certain rights in domestic disputes. For example a wife has certain rights to property and assets and protection against violence. Again, since same sex marriages are not recognized, the people involved are deprived of such rights. Third is the area of dissolution of a relationship, divorce. Again, there are legal protections for the distribution of property aquired jointly. Since marriage of same-sex couples are not recognized there is no basis for such dissolution. Fourth is the issue of inheritance. Again, while a wife in a bisexual marriage has certain inheritance rights, those rights are denied in same-sex unions.
I understand that you believe disallowing homosexual marraiges is discriminatory, and therefore un-christian, but how can you say the christian thing to do is to support and endorse an anti-christian act? I do not say that Christians should approve of same-sex marriage. Thir personal opinions are their own. But I do say that Christians must stand up and oppose discrimination. The question of whether or not homosexuality is anti-christian is another issue. It is certainly one that is not settled. For example the Episcopal Church recently elected and openly gay Bishop. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Tal writes:
quote: So long as the 14th amendment isn't overturned via this new amendment, then changing the constitution is not necessary. A court ruling will do just fine, just as a court ruling ended the miscegenation laws.
quote: No, it was laws in certain states, just as it is now regarding gay marriage. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Then your recourse is to have your representatives amend the constitution. Crap. The folk are now trying to change the Constitution because in the end it will support same-sex marriages.
And was it really in the constitution that interracial marriage was a no/go? No, it was in the local state laws, just as with same-sex marriage restrictions. It's time the majority of us Christians stood up and opposed the bigots that support DOMA and the discriminatory restrictions such bigots are trying to enact. If you oppose same-sex marriage you are a BIGOT. There is simply no other possible discription. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
Stop playing evidence games, and stop having double standards.
You actually quoted me as saying:
Well, it could help if you explain how it's not the same thing.
Yet, despite doing this, you say that my first and second assertions are different, but you do not explain how they are different. You just say they are different. So I guess I have to listen to you, but you don't have to listen to me, just like I have to provide evidence, but you don't (hint: If you ask me for evidence to support my position, I'm also going to ask that you use evidence (or logic or some sort of actual content) to disprove my position). Furthermore, I also said
I'm just saying that children are better off when they're born into married families.
This means I'm trying to clarify at what my first assertion was trying to get at. This assertion is what I was really trying to say, and this assertion is backed up with evidence, so it's time you address this one.Now just like jar, I'm going to offer you two choices 1. Keep playing games with evidence and assertions. 2. Actually try to address the arguments I'm putting forth and understand if I try to clarify an argument for you (which requires that you listen to me).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
jar writes:
That statement contains absolutely no generalizations (sarcasm).
It's another example of the Christian Right blowing smoke. jar writes:
Well, you could theoretically extend these rights to a whole lot of other groups (ie: unmarried couples). If you were to extend marriage rights to all of these other groups, then would marriage be marriage any more? The whole point of these privileges is to support the development of families through marriage. For these four privileges, there are many other privileges that the government grants to all people (ie: under HIPPA, anybody can be entrusted with your medical info if you say so on your medical privacy papers). Here's a question: why would the government provide tax breaks to companies that create American jobs? To promote companies that don't rely on outsourcing. Why would the government provide the aforementioned privileges to married peoples? To promote marriage.
The source for most Health Care is through contracts with the employer. The employer has a group policy that covers employees. In most cases there is a Family Policy available that can extend coverage to other members of the family. Since a marriage is not recognized between same sex-couples, they are not eligible for that family coverage. A second big issue has to do with protection against violence. Legaly a married person has certain rights in domestic disputes. For example a wife has certain rights to property and assets and protection against violence. Again, since same sex marriages are not recognized, the people involved are deprived of such rights. Third is the area of dissolution of a relationship, divorce. Again, there are legal protections for the distribution of property aquired jointly. Since marriage of same-sex couples are not recognized there is no basis for such dissolution. Fourth is the issue of inheritance. Again, while a wife in a bisexual marriage has certain inheritance rights, those rights are denied in same-sex unions. jar writes:
The problem is that the (edit: federal concept) concept of marriage borrows some from the Judeo-Christian version of marriage. I don't have the link to the website for this paraphrased info, but I can certainly dig it up if someone asks. I do not say that Christians should approve of same-sex marriage. Basically, during the fall of Rome, there were three views of marriage: late Roman, barbarian, and Judeo-Christian. The Judeo-Christian outlasted the other views and became the standard in Europe. The reason this becomes important is because the colonists originated from Europe, and many were very religious. Because of all of this, American marriage certainly has primarily Judeo-Christian roots (though not 100%). Given the Judeo-Christian heritage in marriage, the question becomes how far do Christians want to go in defending their view of marriage. This message has been edited by commike37, 01-03-2005 22:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but absolutely nothing in your post justifies bigotry, dicrimination and oppression.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
Jar, would you stop making accusations and start debating? I'm tired of being referred to as an oppressive and discriminative bigot for trying to advocate my views, and then to have you completely ignore my argument. Remember what I said earlier:
Now you have two choices:
It seems that you have chosen the second option.1. Address this argument. 2. Go back to name-calling again. You have accused people who support DOMA and heterosexual marriage at the federal level of committing the ultimate sin and perverting religion as a means of discrimination. My whole point is that this is not trying to discriminate against non-married people, it is simply promoting marriage because marriage is good. My analogy to tax breaks to promote American jobs, not outsourced jobs (outsourcing is good for American companies, but not the American people) demonstrates this point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
My analogy to tax breaks to promote American jobs, not outsourced jobs (outsourcing is good for American companies, but not the American people) demonstrates this point. Your analogy has NOTHING to do with the issue.
You have accused people who support DOMA and heterosexual marriage at the federal level of committing the ultimate sin and perverting religion as a means of discrimination. Accused Hell. I flat out said it and supported my assertion.
My whole point is that this is not trying to discriminate against non-married people, it is simply promoting marriage because marriage is good. And that is pure bullshit. The existence of a same-sex marriage has no effect on a seperate bisexual marriage. To imply that there is some connection is not only bigotry, it's STUPID. DOMA and all of the anti-homosexual legislation is discrimintaion, oppression and bigotry. It is absolutely that someone who claims to be a Christian could even imagine supporting such action. Isn't you fundies that always say "Love the sinner and hate the sin?" If so, then love the damn sinner. Get out and get all those oppressive laws repealed. Get same-sex couples elegible for health care. It's not name calling, it's FACT. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zachariah Inactive Member |
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the same as Blasphemy against the Father (GOD) or the Son (Yeshua) they are one in the same. To speak against or deny them, to curse them. Was this a real question or are you just being funny. -Z
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gilgamesh Inactive Member |
No, I wasn't being funny.
Surely by your definition (To speak against or deny them, to curse them), people are constantly commiting this unpardonable sin? This thread has largely gone off on another tangent. Oh well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
commike37 writes me:
quote: A rudimentary command of English words and grammar is required for meaningful communication. If you can't tell the difference in those two statements then I'm afraid there's no point in continuing this dialogue. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. EDITED to correct my own grammar. This message has been edited by berberry, 01-04-2005 02:25 AM Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024