|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So, if it's an "abberation" does that mean it's a variation in the species, perhaps? More like a genetic disease I would guess if genes have anything to do with it at all, which they may not.
So, do you believe that people with genetic "abberations" should be considered unequal to those without said "abberation"? Not as persons, but as qualified for certain functions, of course.
Do you consider blind or deaf people unequal to sighted or hearing people because of their "abberation", their "condition"? No, a psychological aberration is in a different category from a physical problem. {EDIT: Correction, of course they are unequal. Again, not as persons but with respect to functions that require hearing or seeing. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-04-2005 09:43 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Gays are not equal to straights and do not qualify for hetero marriage. Really? Cuz silly me, I thought all men were created equal. But I guess you know better than the Founding Fathers, don't you? Look, there's really no point in any of us arguing with Faith. It's clear that the American principles of equality under the law or fairness carry absolutely no weight with her. It's disgusting, and I don't understand why she would live in a country so diametrically opposed to her view of the world, but what can you do? Appeals to goodness, or equality, or American principle will find no purchase with her.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Not as persons, but as qualified for certain functions, of course. Like, say, parenting?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: OK, well, what is your definition of what a "natural" heterosexual family with children looks like? At what point does it become "unatural?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
So, if it's an "abberation" does that mean it's a variation in the species, perhaps? quote: So, people you consider, due to your religious beliefs, are genetically inferior shouldn't be afforded the same Constitutional rights as Americans without this genetic variation? The Final Solution is just a hop, skip, and jump away from this kind of thinking, eh, Faith.
So, do you believe that people with genetic "abberations" should be considered unequal to those without said "abberation"? quote: So, do you believe that people with genetic abberations" deserve equal constitutional rights or not?
Do you consider blind or deaf people unequal to sighted or hearing people because of their "abberation", their "condition"? quote: So, should people prone to severe panic attacks and anxiety be considered unequal to those who do are not because of their condition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Marriage is not a constitutional right, it is an ages-old intitution that transcends all political systems and has application only to heterosexuals. You are trying to put a square peg in a round hole and insisting that it has a right to fit there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
By demeaning marriage which is the basis of a stable state, by rendering it a travesty. How does it demean marriage? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How does it demean marriage?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
A natural heterosexual family with children has a male and female parent with heterosexual inclinations and children from their own heterosexual union. That's natural. Everything else is a deviation of one sort or another, some of them nobody's fault, but nevertheless not optimum, but the worst situation is one that pretends to a normality that doesn't exist. Children want their natural parents and while they can adapt to all kinds of less optimum situations they'd rather not have to, and at the very least they shouldn't be fooled into having to believe something is optimum that isn't. That's deceit.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-04-2005 09:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
and has application only to heterosexuals. Now that makes no sense at all. Do you approve of denying health care to people because they are gay? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Apples and oranges. Gays are human beings to be treated as human beings. But only heterosexuals qualify for marriage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Why?
Do you approve of denying health care to gays? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: According to the US Supreme Court, it is:
The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage. quote: Agreed.
quote: No, it clearly has application to everyone, not just heterosexuals. Clearly, it has rather obvious application to homosexuals because many thousands of them are living as married couples do now, except that they are denied the rights that heteros are granted by the state. The state is secular. Your church doesn't have to marry anyone it doesn't want to. Keep your religion out of secular governmental business. Let people who do not believe in your religion be treated equally under the law as everyone else inastead of denying them equal rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So, should people prone to severe panic attacks and anxiety be considered unequal to those who do are not because of their condition? With respect to qualifying for a function that requires steady nerves, absolutely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, can you tell me when in history that it was common that a husband and wife alone raised their children?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024