Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 298 of 448 (468761)
06-01-2008 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Rrhain
05-31-2008 8:55 PM


Let 'em get "garried" [msg=-291]!
Rrhain, you have a serious flaw in your argument. Here are some indicators. From Message 294
Rrhain writes:
. . Do you really think most people would be happy if their daughters decided to marry someone of a different race? At any rate, at the time that Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the American population felt that people of different races shouldn't be allowed to get married. That's more than the current percentage of people who think that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married.
And from Message 296:
"Cure"? You mean like "curing" brown eyes, kinky hair, and dark skin? Given a real chance to reverse being black, would black people choose to be cured?
And from Message 297:
"Separate but equal"? Didn't we already learn this lesson?
You see, Rrhain, you are wrongly conflating two different things: race and sexual orientation. And, by doing so, you are asserting that both have genetic roots, or at least roots in heritable characteristics. You need to present evidence that homosexuality has genetic roots in order to place it on the landscape of heritable characteristics. People don’t choose what they inherit. But you COULD choose your sexual orientation, and many do.
I call upon you are others contributing to this discussion who believe race and sexual orientation are equivalents in both biological and legal contexts to reexamine your assertions. For you to compare the struggle of minority races in this country, especially the ones who were enslaved, with the whimsy of homosexuals who assert their rights to “gay marriage” is a public embarrassment for you. By doing so you reveal yourself as an ignorant bigot.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Rrhain, posted 05-31-2008 8:55 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by bluescat48, posted 06-01-2008 6:11 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 305 by Rrhain, posted 06-03-2008 2:18 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 301 of 448 (468831)
06-01-2008 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by bluescat48
06-01-2008 6:11 PM


Re: Let 'em get "garried" [msg=-291]!
bluescat48 writes:
But in what you are saying about Rrhain's statements you are revealing yourself as an ignorant bigot.
But I’m the one of the ones here calling for civil unions between gays to protect their legal rights. I’m out to change the law for them. I’m out to give them everything they want . everything except legalized “marriage.” And I ask a simple question: Why should the law officiate in marriages anyway? The business of the law is sanctioning civil unions, not serving as ersatz churches. I would prefer to leave the churches in charge of marriages, as it should be. I don’t care what the churches do, so long a they don’t sacrifice farm animals, because I don’t have anything to do with churches. But I do care what the laws do; I have a lot to do with them, and they have a lot to do with me.
There is nothing bigoted about believing that the word “marriage” should apply only to unions of members of opposite sexes. Is it bigoted to give baby girls pink booties and baby boys blue ones? Maybe was should have a law that says you can’t discriminate between the sexes that way, because maybe that little baby boy would prefer a pink booty over a blue one.
By pushing “gay marriage,” the gays are doing the equivalent of pushing for ant-booty-color discrimination laws, because the current laws encourage heterosexuality, which means it discourages homosexuality. Why don't they make a case over that, too?
It’ silly.
Just because, at this time it is unknown whether sexual orientation is hereditary or not does not mean that it should be all right to discriminate against someone who is different in sexual orientation any more that it is alright to discriminate against one because of his race, creed, ethicity, social position, sex or any disability.
If they already have the same rights as I do, which they do, then how are they being discriminated against? You want society to bend for them as if they had been enslaved for inheriting racial characteristics. And you want to make it seem as if homosexuality and race are on the same page for comparative purposes where suffering is concerned. Furthermore, you want to call people bigots for disagreeing with your position on this issue.
I will be more likely to agree with you, bluescat48, when you can show me how a person becomes homosexual in the same way a person becomes black.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by bluescat48, posted 06-01-2008 6:11 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by lyx2no, posted 06-01-2008 8:12 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 306 by Rrhain, posted 06-03-2008 2:53 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 304 of 448 (468844)
06-01-2008 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by lyx2no
06-01-2008 8:12 PM


Re: Let 'em get "garried" [msg=-291]!
lyx2no writes:
So, if a gay couple got married in a Universalist church you'd be cool with that and call it a marriage?
I would be cool with that if I didn't have to be part of it. By keeping the word "marriage" in the law makes me part of it. But if marriage were to become the exclusive business of religious enterprises or whatever then I don't care what they do in their sacred halls (up to a point, of course).
You can have a star named after your sweetheart or your mother if you like in the "International Star Registry." You even get a fancy certificate. If people want to do that it doesn't bother me, just so long as don't have to have to be part of it.
The only alternative to taking "marriage" out of the law is to add another word to the law for civilly united homosexuals: "garriage." I'm sorry, but the word "marriage" is already taken by the heterosexuals to describe their unique civil unions.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by lyx2no, posted 06-01-2008 8:12 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Rrhain, posted 06-03-2008 3:13 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 309 of 448 (469061)
06-03-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Rrhain
06-03-2008 3:13 AM


Rrhain's blindness
It’s absolutely laughable, Rrhain. You may as well be calling for unisex (both sexes) public rest rooms, using the argument that separate-but-equal is unfair sexual discrimination. Maybe I would like to sit there and listen to a women tinkle. What harm is there in doing that? We’d have our own private stalls. I wouldn’t even reach under the divider and tap on her shoe. She could listen to me tinkle, too, if she had a mind to. We’d both be free to listen to anybody tinkle and nobody would be harmed by it. Who'd be the victim in that? So we need a special law to protect the rights of tinkle listeners. They’re good people, too, you know. And anybody who says they’re wrong for being who they are is a big fat bigot!
Rrhain, you and others here are advancing an argument that is purely opinion and nothing more. There is no inherently moral right or legal entitlement that empowers homosexuals, tinkle listeners, chicken abusers, voodoo cursers, or any group that wants special treatment under the law. I’m afraid all that is only a matter of opinion and choice, not a matter of morality or heritability. And I say “special” because every homosexual, tinkle listener, chicken abuser, or voodoo curser has EXACTLY the same rights I do.
You have not yet explained why “gay marriage” is worthy of special accommodation under the law. I have said that if gays want to get “married” (or “garried”) in a church I have no objection. Because I don’t have to join that church if I don’t want to. But if I have to sanction “gay marriage” because the laws require me to sanction it”because I am necessarily part of any law in a country whose laws are made ”of the people, by the people, and for the people””then I say bullshit. The next special group coming down the pike will want their special rights, too.
Here’s the bottom line, Rrhain. Let the homosexuals have their civil unions so that they can no longer claim to be legally disadvantaged. I have to be a part of that, though, because I am necessarily part of any law in a country whose laws are made ”of the people, by the people, and for the people." But, being a noble person, I will move over to accommodate them, and I’ll do it gladly, IF THE LAW GETS OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF "MARRIAGE."
I don’t object to civil partnerships. Old ladies legally leave their fortunes to their cats. I’m OK with that. But I’m not OK with an old lady “marrying” her cat in a legal ceremony at the county courthouse. Let them go down to the Tuna Fish of Life Mission for that if they need to.
”HM
Edited by Hoot Mon, : same-sex ”> unisex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Rrhain, posted 06-03-2008 3:13 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by BMG, posted 06-03-2008 4:29 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 318 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2008 3:08 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 311 of 448 (469080)
06-03-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by BMG
06-03-2008 4:29 PM


What about same-sex polygamy?
Infixion writes:
I think you have it backwards. If there were same-sex public rest rooms that would be an example of separate but equal, just as having colored restrooms and drinking fountains was separate but equal, and, most importantly, unconstitutional.
Thank you, Infixion, for your astute correction. I changed it (same-sex ”> unisex).
Opinion is a claim that is not supported by premises. Rrhain and others have done nothing but provide arguments in favor of equality and equal protection under the law.
A legal opinion is supported by premises. A scientific opinion is supported by premises. A religious opinion is support by premises. Are there not differing opinions on the legality of Christmas trees in public schools? Yes, Christians have provided arguments on that issue, too, but none of them was anything more than an opinion. And none of mine was either.
As has been said repeatedly, the 14th amendment warrants equal protection under the law: equal, not special.
Then everything is fine and dandy. Since homosexuals have the same rights I do they are already equal to me under the law. You'll say that homosexuals are not equal because they can't have "same-sex marriages." Well, I can't have a legally sanctioned polygamous marriage either, even if I wanted one. So why aren't you out there banging the gong for legalized polygamy?
Again, as has been said by Rrhain and others, whether it is by choice or not is completely irrelevant. The law does not discriminate against followers of any religion, which is by choice, or against members of any racial group, which is heritable, and not by choice.
The law discriminates against polygamists. Why are you forgetting about them? They might want to call you a bigot.
Again, as said before, civil unions are the very definition of being disadvantaged. Separate and equal are negatives. Something cannot be separate and in the same breath be called equal, just as something cannot be called round and in the same breath be called not round.
And maybe something should NOT be called "marriage" if it is supposed to legally unite two or more members of the same sex in a civil union. Why can't "marriage" be reserved for heterosexuals? Why do homosexuals feel the need to horn in on that? Heterosexuals are called "straight" and homosexuals are called "gay." You have no problem with that, do you? Then why not "marriage" for straights and "garraige" for gays?
Prediction: The next big gay issue will be same-sex polygamy.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by BMG, posted 06-03-2008 4:29 PM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by FliesOnly, posted 06-04-2008 12:38 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 314 by BMG, posted 06-04-2008 2:33 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 319 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2008 3:40 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 313 of 448 (469193)
06-04-2008 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by FliesOnly
06-04-2008 12:38 PM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
FliesOnly writes:
Do you even bother to fucking read anything that people post? Go back and look at the numerous postings that inform you about the legal ramifications of denying gays the right to marry the person they love. Hint...it's not necessarily about the "love"...it's about the benefits that spouses are awarded as a result of the civil union called "marriage". Read...Hoot Mon...read.
I'm reading. I'm reading. And I'm reading that the law has something to do with letting people marry who they "love." Does the law do that? I don't think the law has anything to do, or should having anything to do, with letting people marrying who they love. Are you prepared to legalize the definition of "love"? Jerry Lee Lewis loved his fifteen-year-old cousin, and married her, too. According to you that was OK.
Get fucking real!
Yeah...and then after that them uppity Negros are gonna wanna move into my neighborhood...and maybe even begin to think that they deserve a vote. Stupid Negros...why can't they just stay with their own "kind"?
And if I were one of "them uppity Negros" I'd be furious as hell about your ridiculous comparison of my historical plight with that of the gays.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by FliesOnly, posted 06-04-2008 12:38 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by FliesOnly, posted 06-04-2008 2:35 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 320 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2008 4:00 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 316 of 448 (469250)
06-04-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by FliesOnly
06-04-2008 2:35 PM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
FliesOnly writes:
Hint...it's not necessarily about the "love"...
Then why did you bring it up?
...it's about the benefits that spouses are awarded as a result of the civil union called "marriage".
Why does a civil union need to be called a "marriage" under the law? Should the law call a civil servant a "boy" or a "maid"? Should the law call a supreme-court judge a "high priest"?
Get it, Hoot Mon..it's a not a comparison of the plight of African Americans to homosexuals...
Don't tell me that while you continue to make that comparison. It comes up again and again on this thread. For a recent example, Infixion in Message 314 countered my statement:
quote:
Why can't "marriage" be reserved for heterosexuals?
with:
Why can't the front of the bus be reserved for whites?
I'm afraid neither of you have been able to grasp the point here. You are comparing racial issues with sexual-orientation issues. It is a false and insulting comparison.
it's about equal protection under the law, as per the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.
And when I proposed we do just that by removing "marriage" from the law and relegating it to the churches, per the First Amendment, you disagreed. What's wrong with relegating "law" to the government and "love" to the churches? Doesn't the First Amendment even require it?
So let me make this suggestion to you again. Go back and read all the post that address this stupid issue (comparing Blacks to homosexuals), as well as your stupid "but I can't marry someone of the same sex either" argument.
Just by calling my arguments stupid doesn't sway the jury one least bit. In the end, all we have on this matter of "same-sex marriage" is opinion. We just disagree, that's all. No one is more morally correct than any other person. The only measure that counts on this issue is the WEIGHT of opinion accruing on either side of it. As such, your side is a lightweight opinion and you shouldn't be messing around with the heavyweights. But that's just my opinion.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by FliesOnly, posted 06-04-2008 2:35 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2008 11:55 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 321 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2008 4:31 AM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 323 by FliesOnly, posted 06-05-2008 11:56 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 322 of 448 (469381)
06-05-2008 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Rrhain
06-05-2008 3:08 AM


Mother Nature doesn't like gays
Hi Rrhain,
Your posts Message 318, Message 319, and Message 320 contain undocumented quotes. I'm sure you are honest in your cut-and-paste quotations, but I have no way of verifying them. Could you provide some links, please?
Rrhain writes:
Gay people can't get married.
Gay people can't serve in the military.
Gay people can't be safe from being fired.
Gay people can't be safe from being evicted.
Gay people can't keep custody of their children.
Gay people can't be free from torture.
Wrong:
Gay people can get married. (They can get married, just like I can.)
Gay people can serve in the military. (Don't ask, don't tell.)
Gay people can be safe from being fired. (At least as safe as I can be. Can anybody be safe from being fired? I was fired once for not being Catholic.)
"Gay people can't be safe from being evicted." (Who sez? I know of no evictions for gayness.)
"Gay people can't keep custody of their children." (Who sez? Show me where gays are having their children taken away.)
"Gay people can't be free from torture." (Hell, I can't be free from torture for being old. In fact, being old is its own form of torture. The young women I ogle would like to have their boyfriends cut off my nuts. And the young men I ogle would like to suck on them. Do you know how torturous that is?)
Rrhain, I believe you are sincere in your arguments. Could you tell me why so many people oppose your POV? You are in the vast minority, you know. Why do you insist that you're right when so many others say you're wrong?
Wouldn't it be better for all people involved if science discovered the cause homosexuality and found a way to cure it? Even Mother Nature isn't very friendly toward gays. I've never seen a single photograph of two male bears in the woods giving each other BJs.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2008 3:08 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by FliesOnly, posted 06-05-2008 11:59 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 329 by Rrhain, posted 06-06-2008 2:40 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 325 of 448 (469394)
06-05-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by FliesOnly
06-05-2008 11:59 AM


Re: Mother Nature doesn't like gays
Any photographs to offer up on that, FliesOnly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by FliesOnly, posted 06-05-2008 11:59 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by FliesOnly, posted 06-05-2008 4:14 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 328 by FliesOnly, posted 06-05-2008 4:17 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 326 of 448 (469396)
06-05-2008 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by FliesOnly
06-05-2008 11:56 AM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
FliesOnly writes:
We're not comparing the plight of Blacks in this Country with the plight of homosexuals. We're pointing out to you and yours that you are using the exact same argument to deny homosexual marriage as was once used to deny inter-racial marriages.
Are you aware, FO, that you have written a self-contradictory statement? The logical equivalent to this is: I'm not talking about A, I'm talking about B, and therefore A = B.
Been covered ad nauseum. Go back and READ the posts. And pay special attention to those sections that explain the whole concept of "separate but equal".
I agree. It sure does put a crimp on those heterosexual tinkle listeners who are bound by law to listen only to other men tinkle in public restrooms.
And I'm still awaiting a SCOTUS opinion on the matter. Do you think the high court will even bother to hear such a claim by homosexuals that they are being denied their Fourteenth Amendment rights by not being allowed to get married?
Hey, maybe SCOTUS will agree with them. It might help to reduce the number of abortions.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by FliesOnly, posted 06-05-2008 11:56 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Rrhain, posted 06-06-2008 2:54 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 331 by FliesOnly, posted 06-06-2008 7:26 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 332 of 448 (469604)
06-06-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by FliesOnly
06-06-2008 7:26 AM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
FO writes:
No, Hoot Mon, I did not put forth a self contradictory statement. I am not comparing the plight of blacks and this Country to the plight of homosexuals. I'm going to go slowly here, so maybe you can keep up. What I (and others) are telling you is that you (and Catholic Scientist) are using the very same arguments to prevent homosexuals from marrying members of the same sex, as were once used by people to prevent blacks from marrying whites.
There you go. You did it again.
I am not, nor have I ever, stated that homosexuals face the same problems in this society as blacks once did and often still do.
Come on! You and your side of the argument can't leave it alone. Your whole spiel is predicated on racial-discrimination principles. And that makes it bogus and irrelevant.
How in the fuck will allowing gay marriage in any way affect the number of abortions in this Country?
Well, I would venture to say that Larry and Frank would be less likely to need an abortion than Jim and Jennifer would. Neither Larry nor Frank are NATURALLY endowed with a complete set of equipment for getting either one of them pregnant.
Can't you see how ridiculous this "gay marriage" issue is? It may not be ridiculous to you, but it is to a vast majority of Americans who regard "marriage" to be a civil and sacred union between members of opposite sexes. No one is wrong or bigoted for holding that opinion. And anyone who says they are wrong for holding that opinion would fit my definition of a "bigot."
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by FliesOnly, posted 06-06-2008 7:26 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 4:55 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 351 by Meddle, posted 06-07-2008 8:20 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 384 by FliesOnly, posted 06-09-2008 1:42 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 333 of 448 (469606)
06-06-2008 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by bluescat48
06-04-2008 11:55 PM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
bluescat48 writes:
DISCRIMINATION is DISRCIMINATION no matter who is being discriminated against. It doesn't matter whether it is racial, sexual, religious, ethnic, or any other classification real or imagined.
Any special group can claim DISCRIMINATION if they want to make a legal issue over it. Accusations of DISCRIMINATION can come from any minority group, if it chooses to put political spin on its claims. But where is the DISCRIMINATION if the law were to allow gays, as well as straights, to get civilly united, while making no reference to marriage, per se? It's a simple solution. Let the churches decide who gets married. The First Amendment would be friendly to that. Problem solved.
But, oh, no! That doesn't cut it for the gays. They want the LAW to say they're "married," even if the LAW doesn't (or wouldn't) specify "marriage"”the word”in sanctioning heterosexual civil unions.
There's the acid test for bigotry.
btw: bluescat48, I don't regard you as a bigot.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2008 11:55 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by bluescat48, posted 06-06-2008 2:05 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 339 by Taz, posted 06-06-2008 5:54 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 347 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 5:18 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 334 of 448 (469608)
06-06-2008 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Rrhain
06-06-2008 2:54 AM


Why do I have to google?
Hi Rrhain,
I suppose you expect me to google up all of laws and quotes you use to support your argument. Here's the most recent example:
You seem to have forgotten Lawrence v. Texas and Scalia's dissent:
This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Is that a quote? Where's the link? Am I suppose to go chasing after it?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Rrhain, posted 06-06-2008 2:54 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 5:30 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 336 of 448 (469634)
06-06-2008 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by bluescat48
06-06-2008 2:05 PM


Church documents v. Government documents
bluescat writes:
So then change all marriage licenses to civil union licenses.
That is the only way I know of to resolve this issue fairly.
They are not church documents but local government documents.
If I follow you correctly, I agree. Let the churches decide who gets married, and let the government decide who gets civilly united.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by bluescat48, posted 06-06-2008 2:05 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by bluescat48, posted 06-06-2008 4:11 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 338 by Nuggin, posted 06-06-2008 4:30 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 345 by bluescat48, posted 06-06-2008 9:58 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 349 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 5:44 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 340 of 448 (469676)
06-06-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Nuggin
06-06-2008 4:30 PM


Re: Church documents v. Government documents
Nuggin writes:
Further, wouldn't we then run into the following problem:
The STATE agrees all these people are in civil unions.
The Catholic Church agrees that only heterosexual couples can be "married" in their church.
The Methodists agree to allow homosexual marriages.
The Catholics refuse to acknowledge the Methodist homosexual marriages.
So, the Methodists refuse to acknowledge the Catholic heterosexual marriages.
Unless we COMPLETELY strip the "church" marriages of any meaning, power, significance, etc we're gonna end up with 10,000 different versions of "marriage".
Not being a religious person myself I couldn't care less what the churches do. They can marry a six-year-old girl to a G.I. Joe doll and it wouldn't bother me. But I do care what the government does with its laws, since I am of them, by them, and for them, according to Lincoln.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Nuggin, posted 06-06-2008 4:30 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 5:50 AM Fosdick has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024