Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 1:11 AM
21 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Theodoric (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,153 Year: 15,189/19,786 Month: 1,912/3,058 Week: 286/404 Day: 4/96 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 63 of 759 (572421)
08-05-2010 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 10:38 AM


But you can't walk in to a church and demand that they put their beliefs on hold, regardless of how reprehensible you may find it to be.

Sure you can. If their beliefs in some way conflict with secular law then they are forced to change, and they have.

Why should they be allowed to reject someone based on sexual orientation then point to an invisible man in the sky and a 2000 year old book to support their case? What kind of lunacy is that to allow?

If they can point to a law that we can all accept, then fine. But pointing to 2000 year old stories as their evidence in support of their outright ignorance, fuck that.

I'm just distinguishing the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage.

On is make-believe, like the one's my daughters perform on their dolls. The other is the only legal one. That is the only difference I can see.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 10:38 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 6:11 PM onifre has responded
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2010 4:41 AM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 71 of 759 (572517)
08-06-2010 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 6:11 PM


It's not lunacy, it's freedom.

That should be a bumber sticker for the Iraq and Afghan war. lol

You should be able to do whatever it is you want, believe whatever it is you want, so long as it doesn't harm someone in the process.

Dude you/anyone could be a nazi, racist, bigot who thinks women and minorities shouldn't vote or be seen in public, BUT, if you are also a restaurant owner, you can't discriminate on the basis of your beliefs. Especially not when your reason for doing so is because an invisible man in the sky inspired some select people 2000 years ago to write a book... that's a bogus copout.

You can believe whatever you want, yes I agree, but if you're going to be given the right to marry people, keep your opinions out of it. And that goes for any other job, restaurant/bar owner, theater owner, comedy club, etc. OR, simply get out of that business because apparently they can't keep their individual beliefs out of it.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 6:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 72 of 759 (572519)
08-06-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dr Adequate
08-06-2010 4:41 AM


Especially since even if he's compelled to marry them, he is still free to add: "You may now kiss the .. other groom ... oh, and by the way, in God's eyes you're not really married and you'll burn in Hell".

In the same sense that many, many racist had to marry interracial couples and watch them kiss in their face.

They were free to add whatever they wanted, too, but they were also free to get drilled in the mouth. People tend to remember that often before they speak in public. A straight jab to the grill always seems to remind people that their opinions, especially when not a favorable one, should be kept to themselves.

It'll take a few fists to the mouth to correct the whole situation, but it'll get corrected. And if anyone thinks gay men can't fight, they should come down to south beach and see the roided out animals that also happen to be gay. It'll make anyone think twice about insulting them. It's one thing to get your ass kicked, but it's another thing to get your ass kicked by someone who would also fuck it... Lol

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2010 4:41 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 78 of 759 (572584)
08-06-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dr Adequate
08-06-2010 1:50 PM


That would make Baby Jesus cry.

I like to picture Jesus in a tuxedo T-Shirt because it says I want to be formal, but I'm here to party. Or, I like to think of Jesus like with giant eagles wings, and singin' lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with like an angel band and I'm in the front row and I'm hammered drunk!

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2010 1:50 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Huntard, posted 08-06-2010 4:53 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 80 of 759 (572588)
08-06-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Huntard
08-06-2010 4:53 PM


Ricky Bobby!!! lol

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Huntard, posted 08-06-2010 4:53 PM Huntard has acknowledged this reply

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 88 of 759 (573223)
08-10-2010 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2010 1:15 PM


Now that I know there is a provision that equally protects religion and homosexuals

But why should religious people be protected to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, yet no other person(s) or business would be protected in the same manner?

Why does religion get a pass? And this has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 1:15 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 08-10-2010 1:33 PM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 1:41 PM onifre has responded
 Message 94 by subbie, posted 08-10-2010 3:09 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 100 of 759 (573269)
08-10-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by subbie
08-10-2010 3:09 PM


No, it has to do with the Free Exercise Clause. One is free to argue that we shouldn't have a Free Exercise Clause, but as long as it's there, the State cannot require anyone to do anything that violates their religious dictates without a compelling interest, and then it must do it in a way that intrudes on religious beliefs in the least possible manner.

Right, but no one is asking them to perform religious ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs. I'm talking about the right to legally marry someone through a state sanctioned license. Same as say, legally selling alcohol through a state sactioned license.

Wouldn't it now separate the pastor from his church and make him/her a representative of the state when he legally marries someone?

Doesn't that not also require them to adhere to non-discriminatory laws that the state mandates, that supercede individual beliefs?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by subbie, posted 08-10-2010 3:09 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 101 of 759 (573272)
08-10-2010 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2010 1:41 PM


If religion isn't allowed to dictate why homosexuals can or can't marry, why would/should the opposite be true?

Because the pastor went to the state and asked for a license to marry, which means, they should now adhere to the laws of the state. If they don't like the laws of the state, then they don't have to apply for the license. Simple as that.

If you want to get a license to sell alcohol, but you think the drinking age should be 18, then you are in violation of the state law. Either follow the state law or don't apply for the license. Simple as that.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 1:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Huntard, posted 08-10-2010 5:10 PM onifre has responded
 Message 108 by kjsimons, posted 08-11-2010 10:32 AM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 103 of 759 (573278)
08-10-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Huntard
08-10-2010 5:10 PM


Nobody is stopping him from holding a religious marrying ceremony for the couple as well

That seems to be the only area where the church has (and rightfully so) jurisdiction. Like when my kids marry their dolls, and I tell them, "Don't marry the black and the white one together," but they do it anyway. My kids, in that ceremony, have the authority.

But not state sanctioned marriages, where state law supercedes. Sorry, but their invisible friend doesn't have any say so in those cases.

"Hey boss, you know what, I only want to take on pink dumpsters from now on, any other dumpster can stuff it as far as I'm concerned", what do you think my boss will do?

Call you queer and ask you to marry him? Lol

I know I shouldn't have assumed the boss was a male but it wouldn't have been as funny with a female boss.

Pff, just sell it to them when they're sixteen, we do it over here (well beverages up to 15% that is, anything over that and you need to be 18)

When I was younger this would have been great. But now that I'm older, I'd hate to be in bars with annoying 18 year old douche bags, and it would certainly be worse if they were 16.

I think the drinking age should be 30 for men, 21 for women.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Huntard, posted 08-10-2010 5:10 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Huntard, posted 08-11-2010 7:49 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 115 of 759 (573464)
08-11-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by kjsimons
08-11-2010 10:32 AM


Oni, only this isn't true. States don't license people to perform marriages

It may not be true for all states but, some states do require it.

See here:

quote:
Usually the state laws provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed.

Some states have laws that permit other persons to apply for authority to perform marriage ceremonies. For example, California law permits anyone to apply for permission to become a Deputy Commissioner of Marriages -- the grant of authority is valid for one day -- and thus officiate at the wedding of family or friends on that one day.


In those states where even the clergy must be licensed, the state law should superceds their beliefs.

...but if a church doesn't want to marry someone for religious reasons, however bigoted, then that's their right.

We're not talking about marriage ceremonies, we're talking about signing a marriage certificate. If a gay couple approaches a clergy who has been given, by the state, a license to sign their marriage certificate, and they ask him/her to sign their marriage license, then they should have to sign it. Note, they'r not asking them to perform a marriage ceremony for, just sign my paper, as the state has allowed them to do.

Their beliefs/bigotry/prejudices should NOT play a factor in that.

However, I agree that they should not be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple if they don't want to. But sign the paper when asked to? Yes, I believe they should have to.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by kjsimons, posted 08-11-2010 10:32 AM kjsimons has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 159 of 759 (577215)
08-27-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Taz
08-26-2010 9:20 AM


It's not about race, it's about religious ties...
I wonder how much tough talk you'll do in front of a couple of blacks or mexicans? I presume none since you've brought your onslaught of racial slurs here to an internet forum, tough guy. Either that or you just need attention.

But anyway...

Your fight shouldn't be with the persons race, but rather their religous beliefs, which usually dictates their personal stance on homosexuality. Most blacks and latinos (and lets be specific, you're on about mexicans only) have strong religious ties to Christianity, the biggest proponents of anti-gay marriage. You see the example clearly here on EvC.

ANYONE of any color, race, ethnicity, who follows the strick teachings of the Bible, as most mexicans and blacks do, will have anti-homosexual feelings, even if it's just tucked away deep in their subconscious. And only shows it's face when they're in a closed voting booth.

The main reason Prop 8 was originally voted against was, believed to be, the high influx of black voters who turned out to vote for Obama, in turn voting against Prop 8, which is what their Christian beliefs dictated.

But all these communities who have been subjected to ongoing prejudices have absolutely no excuse to turn around and discriminate others.

But they do, it's in their Bible. Just as it's in the Bible of ALL Christians who oppose gay marriage, as they are the biggest anti-gay marriage proponets in the US.

It only makes sense that groups who are predominantly Christian would be against gay marriage, no matter what color or ethnic background they happen to be.

Let's require everyone carry around their papers so that we can pull over all the ones who look like they might be illegal.

As I read this thread it looks like you changed your focus from Latinos and Blacks, which would include ANY latin person, like me (and to that I say go fuck yourself), to now just focusing on mexican immigrants, and only illegal ones at that.

Fine, so you do away with illegal immigrants, but what do you do about the other 46.9 million hispanics who are predominantly Christian and would vote as any other Christian would?... and the entire 41.1 million members of the African American community who are also predominantly Christian and would vote the same as other Christians?

You don't solve anything by sending mexicans back. However, you may solve a lot by educating Christians and right-wing Republicans about tolerance and acceptance of individual freedoms.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Taz, posted 08-26-2010 9:20 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Taz, posted 08-27-2010 7:05 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 160 of 759 (577216)
08-27-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Taz
08-26-2010 9:20 AM


It's not about race, it's about religious ties...
Double post

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Taz, posted 08-26-2010 9:20 AM Taz has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 176 of 759 (577795)
08-30-2010 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taz
08-27-2010 7:05 PM


Re: It's not about race, it's about religious ties...
I said latino and black communities. Not referring to their race. I'm referring to their communities.

And you're accusing people of being politically correct?

Latin and black communities, last I checked, were made up of blacks and latins... At least man up and blame who you want to blame.

Are you going to deny the stats that 70-80% of them are anti gay?

You pointed to some black and latino counties in California... how is that representative of all latin and black communities?

You people have been making the politically correct statement that it's not the religion that does the hating. It's suppose to be the people.

Now you're turning around and blame it on the religion to keep your words politically correct.

Politically correct? Me?

I'm not blaming the religion, I'm blaming the people who read a few words in the Bible and use that to justify their hate and/or disapproval of homo-sexuals. Especially homo-sexuals who want to get married.

And that's not just Christians, Muslims do this too.

So, I'll just aim for the most obvious targets... the illegals.

Illegals can't vote, dude... So who cares what they think or disapprove of? They won't affect the outcome of any vote.

Oni writes:

Fine, so you do away with illegal immigrants, but what do you do about the other 46.9 million hispanics who are predominantly Christian and would vote as any other Christian would?...

Taz writes:

Ever heard of baby steps? I'm sure we'll come up with something to deal with those guys by then.

By 2050 we'll out number the whites in the US, so I'd do whatever you want to do before then.

May be it will be comedians that they will go after next time. See how funny you guys are in a cage sitting on top of your own filth.

It was called the 80's, pushed by Regan and his brain-washed conservative minions. Guess wha? We won!

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Taz, posted 08-27-2010 7:05 PM Taz has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 290 of 759 (653232)
02-19-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Taz
02-19-2012 12:09 AM


Politically incorrectness
This is why the gay rights movement is slow down to a crawl.

I agree. If we could just call them dirty, cock sucking faggits and nasty twat licking dykes to their faces, all will be right with the world and advances would finally be made in the gay rights movement.

This is thinking outside the box!

You liberal commie political correctness crowd don't want to offend people.

Thank you. Marxist liberals who support toned down versions of certain phrases don't get that you could just as well call a gay person a dirty fag and it would solve just as many problems as calling them gay.

As long as they keep their words politically correct, they can continue to discriminate all they want. And you liberal commies seem to be just fine with it as long as they stay politically correct.

Fucking hippie Marxists, ruining perfectly good politically incorrect words with politically correct words, and in turn helping people who think politically incorrect build a politically correct argument. All the while gays aren't being called fags to their faces, keeping them down! Can't anyone see the logic here? Ugh

Stop worrying so much about the words that people say and pay attention to what they're actually saying.

Finally, someone with some sense, thanks Taz.

People should NOT listen to the words people say and instead they should actually listen to the words people are saying. Brilliant!

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Taz, posted 02-19-2012 12:09 AM Taz has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 293 of 759 (653247)
02-19-2012 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Taz
02-19-2012 2:03 PM


So far not a single state has voted by majority to allow gay marriage. It's been done in the courts. And even then, they're being challenged as we speak. That's not achieving much.

Agreed, most Sundays are "challenge the gays" day.

It's gaining ground 1 inch at a time.

That's what he said.

Still got a hundred miles to go.

That's what... wait, he said that? Or did she...? Someone said that.

Why is it that people all of the sudden forgot that they voted a sodomy law advocate into the office twice?

Forget? Maybe others have, but I remind myself of this everyday as I'm brushing my teeth.

Anyway, good luck doing it your way. You guys would rather have subtle bigotry in your face.

Yup, that's how these Marxist roll. I like me some no-holds-barred bigotry, right to my face! I usually correct people, or at least advise them not to be all PC around me when they're being bigots.

Here's my suggestion for a new approach. Stop saying things like "it's ok to disagree" or "we respect your religious beliefs". Instead, say "if you don't like us, just say so" and "let's talk specifics about why you hate gay people".

A more clear cut argument has never been proposed. Well done, Taz.

The reasonable or semi-reasonable ones will eventually turn. The unreasonable ones (like buzsaw) we just have to wait for them to die.

Very good point again. Wait for them to die and take homophobia with them. Just like it worked for racism. All those slave owners are dead, thus, so is racism.

I'm with it.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Taz, posted 02-19-2012 2:03 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Taz, posted 02-19-2012 7:44 PM onifre has responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019