Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 313 (750124)
02-11-2015 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
02-11-2015 2:58 PM


So you keep saying, and I keep answering that that is just a clever way of denying us our First Amendment protection.
What are you talking about? The First Amendment does not allow public business to discriminate.
And being unable to discriminate with your public business in no way affects your ability to practice your religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 2:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 313 (751608)
03-04-2015 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
03-04-2015 11:28 AM


Marriage is NOT about "recognising a loving emotional and financial commitment for life for a couple" or "stable loving environments" or any other such subjective feeling-defined crap. It's about the simple objective fact that heterosexuals are DESIGNED for each other and that together they have the physical capacity to produce babies.
From a legal perspective, marriage is just a contract that establishes rights and obligations.
You're talking about marriage as a religious institution.
Nobody wants to change the religious aspects of marriage, they only want to change the legal ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:56 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 216 of 313 (751613)
03-04-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
03-04-2015 11:56 AM


No I am not talking about marriage as a religious institution but as a universally recognized institution in all cultures.
Different cultures have different religious aspects and different governments have different legal aspects. There is no universally recognized institution unless you strip all the different marriages of their defining qualities.
Which, of course, is what you will do and claim that they're all just between a man and a woman. Well, there's a lot more to it than that.
Really there shouldn't BE any legal criteria.
Then forget the whole legal aspect of it. You can go have your private religious marriages outside of the government like the Mormons and Wiccans do.
And too, all the legal stuff that people are doing for the gays must be inconsequential to you if you don't think there should be any legal criteria. Instead, though, you're acting like it will actually affect you in some way. But it won't.
And of course, despite your opinion that there shouldn't be any legal criteria, you would demand the legal protections that you'd expect from a marriage if and when you ever found yourself in a courtroom.
It should be a private matter recognized in a general way.
Then you're not even talking about what people are talking about with gay marriage. They're just talking about the legal institution. They couldn't care less about your private matters.
The only leg you're ever going to be left with to stand on, is all the nonsense you spout about gay marriage leading to the judgement of the nation.
But that's just religious belief and should have zero impact on the legality of the situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 313 (751619)
03-04-2015 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
03-04-2015 12:16 PM


IT ISN'T ABOUT AFFECTING *ME* OR ANY PRIVATE ENTITY OR OTHER MARRIAGES.
Then you really shouldn't care at all.
IT'S ABOUT VALIDATING SOMETHING THAT IN THE NATURE OF THINGS CAN'T BE VALIDATED AND MAKING EVERYBODY TREAT IT AS VALID.
Why would you care about that? Especially if it doesn't affect you?
And if it truly cannot be validated in nature, then it doesn't matter at all if governments are validating it "outside of nature" - it still wouldn't be valid in nature and you should have no complaint.
But regardless, it has been validated from a legal standpoint. And no, you don't have to treat it as valid.
You can keep going on believing that all the gay marriages are invalid even thought the state has recognized them.
Now that you've changed your argument to this, you really don't have any leg to stand on.
Under this standpoint, there really is no good reason for you to oppose the state recognizing gay peoples' marriages. It has zero impact on you and you don't even have to think they're valid either.
There is absolutely zero benefit to yourself in you opposing it.
And I should not have said "legal" because of course legalities are involved in validating a marriage, I just mean GOVERNMENT should stay out of it. There shouldn't be a GOVERNMENT license for instance.
From a legal standpoint it is a contract. Who would oversee the the particulars of, and any disagreements within, the contract if not the government?
Further, whoever you do choose to govern these contracts is going to end up being a governing body anyways. So it might as well be the already established government.
Even more so, governments have been involved in marriages since governments have existed. That's the whole point of having contacts is so that a governing body can come in and rule on it if anything ever goes wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 12:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 1:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 313 (751622)
03-04-2015 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
03-04-2015 1:05 PM


I happen to care about the condition of society itself,
So, doom and gloom from the Almighty God if we let them gays get married?
Is that about all of it?
Or is there some other way that you think gay marriage is going to affect the condition of society?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 1:05 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-04-2015 1:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 229 by Taq, posted 03-04-2015 6:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 243 of 313 (751699)
03-04-2015 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Faith
03-04-2015 11:22 PM


You are actually unable to see the point I was making? Wow.
Uh, no. He was obviously saying that you are substituting fantasy in place of reality.
Since that is what you have defined as mind rape then that is what you are doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 313 (751705)
03-05-2015 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Faith
03-04-2015 11:52 PM


The fantasy is clearly in the attempt to treat a homosexual couple as the same as a heterosexual couple, which truly I would think anyone would recognize
Of course, they're obviously not the same.
and in fact it HAD been recognized universally up until quite recently, as I also said.
I don't think they care about universal recognition. Nobody is going to stop you from believing that their marriages are unnatural or illegitimate.
The treatment that they are attempting to get is an equal protection of the legal rights associated with the legal contract of marriage that the state is involved in.
That you consider this to be a substitution of a fantasy in place of reality, because it goes against your religious beliefs, is not a sufficient reason to stop or prevent the legal precedings.
Since you admit that it won't affect you personally, and faced with the fact that you have no legal dispute (as you admit by stating that you think that the government should just stay out of it), then shouldn't you just stay out of the way and keep your mouth shut?
But you have to overlook cognitive dissonance to outfit homosexuals in the emperor's style clothes to make them fit the institution. Kind of like Cinderella's sisters' feet didn't fit her glass slipper but pretending they did. Charade. Pretense. Fantasy. Dissonance. Distorting of language. Cynical denial. I really think it's obvious and really don't get how others wouldn't.
No, you don't. None of them really care about that. They just want that legal stuff that you agree the government should be involved in anyways.
As you've admitted, its too late as they already are; so why do you care enough to fight against it?
You admit that it won't affect you personally. Faced with the fact that there doesn't have to be a universal treatment of sameness, how else are you going to excuse your behavior?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 313 (751710)
03-05-2015 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
03-05-2015 12:59 AM


You don't have to redefine a universal institution and mangle words to create an illusion if all you want to do is confer certain practical benefits on a contractual arrangement between people,
You're right, you don't have to. But it is a way.
but you are wrong, that is NOT what they want, they want the illusion of marriage.
You can't know that because you are not one of them.
Go ahead and ask them if they care about the things that I said that they didn't, and instead if they really care about the things that I said that they did.
I think they'll tell you that I'm right and you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:06 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 262 of 313 (751738)
03-05-2015 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
03-05-2015 1:06 AM


Destroying the meaning of marriage is a drastic solution to cram down the throats of people who object to it if all you want is practical covenantal benefits that can be arranged many other ways.
Except, as I've explained, since you don't even think the government should be involved in marriage, then any changes to that government definition cannot destroy what you hold the meaning of marriage to be.
You've admitted it has no impact on you.
This objection of yours is hollow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 313 (751748)
03-05-2015 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
03-05-2015 11:29 AM


Since government is doing the defining it certainly CAN change its definition to destroy what's left of the definition of marriage that I hold the meaning of marriage to be.
Let me get this straight, you think that the government should not be involved in marriages.
But you also let them define, for you, what marriage means to you?
How could that possibly work?
Actually I didn't say that. What I said was that objections to gay marriage are not about anybody's own personal experience of marriage. This idea that arguments against gay marriage derive from personal concern about its personal impact are bogus.
I guess I just cannot understand trying to stop something that I have no personal concern for.
I am not arguing from personal concern but for objective social standards, and against what I see as "mind rape" in the redefining of a social category to include what is really a sham, a charade, a fantasy that homosexuals want to live in order to feel normal.
Wow, you're judging their motivation? How rude.
Honestly Faith, regarding gay marriage, all the gays want is equal rights. They don't care about what you think about their marriages. They just want to be able to enter the contract with each other.
I'm sure there are some that are seeking societal progress and acceptance and stuff, but that's really a side issue to the question of whether or not they can enter into a legal contract.
I see this as a recipe for a form of society-wide deceit, or in those who can see through the Emperor's New Clothes, a cynicism that accepts the devaluation of marriage as just another social deceit.
This doesn't make sense at all.
You're acting like if society re-defines marriage, then everyone must accept and embrace that definition. But then you're also arguing that society cannot change the real definition of marriage, because it means something different to you.
That's contradictory. And think about it: How can a legal definition change your personal definition? You still perfectly capable of not considering those gay marriages to be real marriages. How could a re-definition make you think otherwise?
And if it can't happen to you, then what makes you think that its going to happen to anyone else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 11:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 313 (751758)
03-05-2015 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
03-05-2015 12:23 PM


Re: the only benefits were social benefits Faith
You are generalizing a few anecdotes into law.
And you're creating your own version of what Biblical Marriage is.
At least jar is quoting the Bible. You're just making stuff up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 302 of 313 (751849)
03-06-2015 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Faith
03-06-2015 2:26 PM


Marrying anybody other than heterosexuals changes the entire concept of marriage.
Maybe for religions, but from a legal standpoint it is still just two people entering a social contract.
Remember, nobody care what your religion thinks of marriage, they just want the legal rights.
All this religious stuff you keep mentioning is really beside the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 2:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 2:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 305 of 313 (751857)
03-06-2015 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Faith
03-06-2015 2:37 PM


None of this is based on religion, marriage is a universal crosscultural practice of uniting heterosexuals.
Outside of the participants being male and female, there are all kinds of differences between different cultures' rules and laws regarding marriage.
As far as just uniting heterosexuals, well, not any more. Its changing.
I already answered you about the contract. You don't have to marry people for them to engage in any kind of contract they want.
And I agreed that you don't have to, but it is a way to get there.
Just because you don't have to doesn't mean you shouldn't.
Marriage is NOT just ANY contract.
From a legal standpoint, it is just another contract.
How is it different, legally, from other contracts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 2:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 3:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 310 of 313 (751867)
03-06-2015 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Faith
03-06-2015 3:17 PM


In case you hadn't noticed, this discussion is about how this is coming about only recently and is a drastic undermining of the whole history of the meaning of marriage
Except, well, it doesn't undermine the meaning of marriage.
You can still have your traditional marriage. You can still reject that gay marriages count. Nothing has been undermined.
it's all a huge sham and pretense and recipe for cognitive dissonance and an entrenched attitude of cynicism, not healthy attitudes.
You keep saying this stuff... really Faith, they just want equal rights.
Cognitive dissonance and cynicism truly have nothing to do with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 3:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 312 of 313 (751884)
03-06-2015 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Tangle
03-06-2015 4:13 PM


What's not to like? I'm sure Jesus would have been on their side, he seemed like a decent enough bloke.
Here's part of what he said:
quote:
8 Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
10 The disciples said to him, If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.
11 Jesus replied, Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by othersand there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.
That last line always made me wonder...
Those who can accept it should. Doesn't that imply that there are those that cannot accept it? And therefore they don't have to accept it?
Sounds to me like Jesus left some leeway in there.
And I still think that he was using "eunuchs that were born that way" to refer to gay people.
If they are unable to accept marrying the opposite sex, then they don't have to accept that.
I think Jesus would realize that there's really nothing wrong with two people of the same sex getting married, per se. But especially in the legal sense. His, seemingly, stance against it looks like it was based on the Law of Moses, and we just don't follow that any more.
Of course if there is a religious argument against it, then that's fine and dandy if you don't want to enter a gay marriage. But that shouldn't stand in the way of what the laws say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2015 4:13 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 5:39 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024