|
Author
|
Topic: Laws in the US that restrict the rights of Christians
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but christians can't keep interracial couples from marrying anymore. It was, after all, a golden age when the whites were whites and the blacks were blacks like god intended. This was, of course, before them liberals started oppressing the christians by allowing blacks to marry whites.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-14-2007 8:39 PM | | Lithodid-Man has replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
ING writes: I don't know if they are still on the books, but several Southern states used to outlaw sodomy. Such laws, we now know, were specifically directed against Evangelical and Catholic clergy.
They're still on the books, even though the supreme court declared them unconstitutional in 2001.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
|
Message 12 of 84 (421990)
09-15-2007 12:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by nator
09-15-2007 7:12 AM
|
|
schraf writes: Give the little lady a prize!
Uh... Arach is a dude.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by nator, posted 09-15-2007 7:12 AM | | nator has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 13 by Asgara, posted 09-15-2007 12:21 PM | | Taz has not replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 14 of 84 (422104)
09-15-2007 8:29 PM
|
|
|
Over the years, I have heard many many christians complaining how their rights are being taken away by the liberals. You'd think that given the chance for them to list the certain christian rights being violated they'd provide us with a nice long list.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2007 9:33 PM | | Taz has not replied | | | Message 53 by Phat, posted 10-14-2007 7:36 AM | | Taz has not replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 19 of 84 (422263)
09-16-2007 6:20 PM
|
|
|
Bump
Where's the list? I've been assured for years by many christians that there are plenty of laws in the US that oppress christians. Where's the list?
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
Bump one last time by me
LM writes: The silence is because the list does not exist.
And yet I can off the top of my head name at least a dozen laws and policies past and present that the christians have legislated in the name of god to oppress entire groups of people. Of course they don't actually call these oppression. They call them morality or some other bullshit.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-17-2007 3:31 AM | | Lithodid-Man has not replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 41 of 84 (423233)
09-20-2007 12:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by nator
09-20-2007 7:21 AM
|
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
Click peek button to see off topic stuff.
schraf writes: Here in Hampshire, same-sex civil unions are going to be permitted starting in 2008.
A little bit on my take on this. People often ask me "So what if we call it a civil union? They get most of the same rights anyway. Why do you care if it's called civil union or marriage?" My answer is "You call whatever that's under your roof a 'civil union'. Either we all drink out of the same drinking fountain or we don't." Compromise is a good thing in most cases. But this is one of those things that shouldn't be compromised. We tried to compromise with slave owners by giving 3/5th of a human status to black people. We tried to compromise with the racists by the "seperate but equal" bullshit. I thought we already made that clear a long time ago that human rights cannot be compromised just to make the bigots (aka christians) happy. Seperate but equal my ass. Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by nator, posted 09-20-2007 7:21 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
{off topic stuff hidden}
But the fact that we have to compromise to the hate-filled people, especially in this time and age, makes no sense. The kind of prejudice that we are compromising with is staggering at this point in time and this place of all the places on Earth. If "civil union" came like 30 or 50 years ago, I would have accepted it with open arms. But we are in the 21st century for goodness sakes. We've already seen how history of prejudice has repeated itself over and over and over again. We've seen the extremes of the most extremes (slavery and the holocaust). We've seen compromise after compromise that were complete bullshit. We should really have a better sense than keep trying to compromise with the bigots. God supposedly made us all with the inalienable right to pursue our happiness in our own ways as long as we do not violate other people's rights to happiness. Why on earth are we still trying to appease the same fucking morons that persecuted the jews for ages, burned witches, kidnapped and enslaved the Africans, treated women like dirt, gave the newly freed ex-slaves piss-poor rights, ... you know, the same morons that killed Mathew Sheppard and then gave him a whole minute of news coverage before going back to Clinton's sex life for another 3 months? No, I'm not happy at all. Just because the boat is sinking doesn't mean I have to eat a bowl of christian shit. Like I said, either we all drink out of the same drinking fountain or we don't. The rest of you people can celebrate about this civil union bullshit if you want. I'm not going to budge until I see gay people get treated the way they deserve, like the rest of us. Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
Re: Laws that target groups directly
{Off-topic contents hidden}
bren writes: the problem is that our laws are passed by a majority.
The nazis also got the majority vote. Just because the majority believe in something doesn't make it good. Let me give you an example of why this civil union bullshit doesn't work for some, which is the whole point of the seperate but equal bullshit. I know someone that is madly in love with another person of the same sex. The problem is this other person lives in another country. After some years in the US, he is now finally a citizen. But he can't bring the other person over at all. On the other hand, I can simply click a few buttons on the internet and buy myself a mail order bride from a country like Poland or China. But that's not all. Some companies actually offer full refund if the sex ain't great. Or I can go to vegas and marry a random female and get a divorce 52 hours later. Or I can be like Rush Limbaugh and his ex-wives and repeatingly marry and divorce 5 times. Will civil union on a state level help my friend live with his partner in a place that they both can have economic and political opportunities like the rest of us? I'm not saying civil union isn't an improvement from nothing. I'm saying the improvement is surprisingly staggering at this point in time and place. Added by edit.
besides. this is about two people being allowed to live together and enjoy the protection of the law in the relationship they've chosen. a civil union does that. they get the same rights and protections. we can work on the semantics later. for now, they get to make a legal commitment just like the rest of us.
Black children could go to different schools than white children. Black people could sit in the back of the bus and white people could sit in front. Black people could use different bathrooms than white people. Black people could drink off of different drinking fountains than white people. Blah blah blah blah. We can work on the details later. {/rant} Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given. Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 48 of 84 (424757)
09-28-2007 12:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by kuresu
09-28-2007 11:57 AM
|
|
This is actually a pretty damn valid point.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by kuresu, posted 09-28-2007 11:57 AM | | kuresu has not replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
bluescat48 writes: I would welcome a total change to marriage, that is, all unions be civil unions. People, if they wish could have a traditional marriage, but under the law, the union would be a civil union. Then it would not matter if the union was male-female, male-male or female-female. All would have the sames rights.
I've seen this proposal before. This reminds me of how some school districts in the south decided to close down all their schools rather than allow black students to attend the same schools as white students. I've said this before and I'll say it a million times more if necessary. Human rights issues are not up for debate. Human rights issues are not up for compromise. I don't care what the bible says and I certainly don't care what the law says. A human right is a human right.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by bluescat48, posted 10-13-2007 6:45 PM | | bluescat48 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 75 by nator, posted 10-16-2007 10:01 AM | | Taz has replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
Re: Back to the main topic.
Chiro writes: Now that this chaplain business has been taken care of...
I don't think it's been taken care of. Phat seems to be reverting back to his fundy root. In which case, I'm pretty sure he's not convinced that the rights of christian chaplains aren't being violated, seeing how he tried to pull that majority/minority bullshit.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 10-14-2007 4:52 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 74 by Phat, posted 10-15-2007 9:40 PM | | Taz has not replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 77 of 84 (428532)
10-16-2007 5:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 75 by nator
10-16-2007 10:01 AM
|
|
Schraf writes: What's wrong with taking the idea of religious marriage out of government?
There's a difference between marriage and religious marriage. I don't care much for religious marriage, but marriage is more than just a legal issue. When I tell people my wife and I are married, I say, "We're married" and everyone around me will automatically assume that the woman standing next to me is the most important person in my life. It's the social recognition of two people's love for each other. Perhaps you are willing to start telling people that you and limbo...zimbo... wimbo... whatever are civil unionized, but I'm not. In the eyes of many, if not most, people, civil union is just another way of preventing gay people from the social recognition they deserve. It's like Virginia privatizing their entire school system just so they wouldn't have to desegregate back in the civil right era. Currently, we don't have a religious marriage institution in our government, so your question really is not a question at all, but I know what you mean. Schraf, perhaps you are willing to throw away the term "marriage" for whatever that's under your roof, but myself and many gay people I know are not. Us straights have enjoyed the institution and the social recognition that come hand in hand with marriage for a long long time now. You're telling me that you are willing to toss all of that away just so gay people can't get married and enjoy what the rest of us have been taking for granted for generations? Virginia closed down all their public schools for 5 years just so they wouldn't have to desegregate. It finally ended when the Supreme court declared that a state may not privatize their school system to avoid desegregation. I can't help but notice the similarity between this move and what you guys are proposing right now.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by nator, posted 10-16-2007 10:01 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 80 of 84 (428578)
10-16-2007 8:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
10-16-2007 6:37 PM
|
|
crashfrog writes: Why not do the same with marriage? Let's have public civil marriage that anybody can take part in, and then the "till death do us part" stuff can be the province of church, or whatever personal ritual symbology you prefer.
But this is essentially what we have right now. A priest's blessing doesn't mean squat until you have your marriage license. Right now, you could get married in front of a judge or in front of one of the Elvis impersonators. Sounds pretty secular to me.
I don't understand why on Earth you think you would have to start doing that.
Well, because I'm an atheist? Marriage, as far as I am concern, is a secular institution. A religious marriage is something else. What you guys are proposing is we get rid of the word marriage completely and call it a "civil union" while labeling the word "marriage" as religious. How would an interracial couple who wanted to get married in the deep Jim Crow south feel if they were told that they couldn't get married but could instead get a civil union? Like I said before, it's not just the legal or religious aspects of it. The word "marriage" carries with it many social implications. One of those is the instance recognition that the woman I'm MARRIED to is the most important person in my life.
Christ you're being as ignorant as the people who oppose homosexual rights because they think the next act down the pipe is the government forcing them to give fellatio to another man.
That's right, crashfrog, I am very ignorant. This ignorant man is not going to budge just because one side didn't want to allow gay people to get married (and benefit from both the legal AND social rights that come with marriage) and the other wanted to get rid of secular marriage completely just when marriage is within reaching distance of many hopeful gay people. The word means everything, crash.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 6:37 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 8:41 PM | | Taz has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2