|
Post by vertigo on Aug 8, 2004 11:45:51 GMT -5
But if you cared about the right you would fight for it, right? As long as society likes what you like and dislikes what you dislike, you will have nothing to fight against. That would be the perfect soceity for you to live in. It would be unfair to everybody who disagreed with you, but who cares about them anyway?
Tell me you can see the folly in that.
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 8, 2004 12:11:22 GMT -5
We all fight for own interests. that is just how the world works. I may care little about whether you have the right to marry. You care little about the 4 cents I would save because you not having that right. I sorry if everyone is not the type to stand around the fire holding hands singing Kumbya. I'm not trying to be your mortal enemy, that is just cruel side world shows every now and then.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Aug 8, 2004 13:57:25 GMT -5
So you want to live in a world where you decide what goes. You want the choice of what is good, and if you have to force other people to conform, that's just tough.
ccg, remember that you were the one to say that people seemed callous when they talked of things like abortions. Don't you see how utterly callous your view as described here is?
First amend your own view, before you ask others to.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Aug 8, 2004 14:55:47 GMT -5
We all fight for own interests. that is just how the world works. I may care little about whether you have the right to marry. You care little about the 4 cents I would save because you not having that right. I sorry if everyone is not the type to stand around the fire holding hands singing Kumbya. I'm not trying to be your mortal enemy, that is just cruel side world shows every now and then. "That's the way the world works" is a cruddy defense. You may not be able to change the world, but you can change yourself. You seem to have difficulty seeing things from another's point of view. How would you feel if you were homosexual and were denied the right to marry the person you love? How would you feel if you were raped and were forced to bear your rapist's child? You are not gay, and you are not a woman, and therefore you don't feel you have to think about that. Right?
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Aug 8, 2004 16:04:57 GMT -5
I'm actually finding this quite interesting. It's refreshing arguing with someone on this topic who doesn't resort to the silly, "But then you'd allow people to marry their goats" argument. ccg111777 That's a rather slippery definition of discrimination. It's quite different for me to choose not to wear a certain type of clothing of my own volition than it is for the state to mandate that I am not allowed to wear a certain type of clothing. If there is discrimination in refusing to allow same-sex marriages, then it is discrimination by the state, not by individuals. Besides, by your logic here one would be discriminating against everyone but one's marriage partner when deciding to get married, regardless of sex. There is quite a difference between state-sanctioned bigotry and personal preference -- the two are not comparable. Otherwise, I would like to hear your response to the recent ruling by the Hon. William J. Downing of the King County Superior Court in Washington State, which ruled that that state's "Defense of Marriage" act violated the state's constitution in denying same-sex couples the right to marry, while refusing to give them protected status. The full text of the document can be found here. You'll also note when reading it references to no fewer than three separate precendents by the US Supreme Court concluding that marriage is a fundamental right. (Naturally, this is not a binding decision, as it is going immediately to appeal. I'm asking more because it is a recent, cogent legal argument concluding in favour of same-sex marriage in America.)
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Aug 8, 2004 16:52:51 GMT -5
CCG,
Think you could swing by the science and philosophy section and answer the thread titled "Moral dilemma"? I'm curious.
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 9, 2004 10:52:45 GMT -5
thank you for that link,
I skimmed it, and I think I can tear that opinion to threads. I will, but only after my exams that I have this week ok? The more I think about this topic the more I think its just not worth arguing against. You know, I'm not some gay basher or evangelist. This seems just like one of those things that law really doesn't matter, the law is just going to make way for the movement. A lot of people are going to be upset about it, but the government ticks people off all the time.
I'll just tell you that the constitutional questions, the court asked were not the questions they were supposed to ask. At, least not if what I learn in law school so far is correct.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Aug 9, 2004 12:10:10 GMT -5
Take your time. Without you answering in these threads, they're likely to sit a bit anyway. You shouldn't miss much. Good luck on the exams.
|
|
|
Post by Hilly on Dec 11, 2004 8:42:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Dec 11, 2004 20:24:55 GMT -5
This is hearsay, since I haven't yet read the article or the Supreme Court ruling, but the I was told that the Supreme Court has ruled that same-gender marriages are legal. They also went on to provide an out for religion ... no one can force any clergy to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-gendered couple.
I am satisfied with this ruling. (Personally, I don't think clergy should have the authority to oversee a civil contract, but that's just my militant opinion. A witness is a witness ... and if that witness happens to be a "person of the cloth", so be it.)
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 30, 2005 5:57:40 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, Christians should not be claiming the high moral ground when it comes to family values anyway. The traditional family values that we hear described in the media and from church pulpits isn't even Biblical!!! Polygamy and the service of concubines is biblical, cannibalism and murdering babies is biblical, abortion (in a sense ... cutting open the bellies of your enemies pregnant women) is Biblical, incest (on at least 4 momentous occasions, including the birth of the Saviour) is Biblical. It's high time that the Christians stopped using the word Christian in their commentary on family values and started using their heart for something other than a half-way house for their saviour! The only humanitarian option is to allow all rights to be administered equally. **gets off her soapbox and meekly joins the crowd** woe , yes these things are mentioned in the Bible and some were even orderd by God for a certain time and place but that doesnt mean the Bible condones them in general. in fact most are universaly condembed. wait where is canibalism ?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Mar 30, 2005 13:43:21 GMT -5
William, why not rather just admit that the Bible is not the final word? The final word is what the church says, after all.
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 30, 2005 13:48:19 GMT -5
William, why not rather just admit that the Bible is not the final word? The final word is what the church says, after all. because Im not Catholic. your not painting us all with the same brush are you?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Mar 30, 2005 13:59:40 GMT -5
Okay then, the final word is what the priest/pastor says. It's one and the same. Or are you saying you read and interpret the Bible indepently? If so, will you too form a congregation?
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 30, 2005 14:03:45 GMT -5
this was a tough one and Im glad the desision isnt up to me alone. I realise that it is one thing to believe in the Bible and chose to let it run MY life and quite another when we influence public policy. I have had many gay friends and have winessed the destruction that the lifstyle has on people, i also saw first hand how "open" most "commited" gay relationships arewhen I combine that first hand knowlage with statistics that show the same pattern, and the fact thet there are thousand of former gays that have left the lifestyle, I voted keep marige as it has been, between a man and a woman. I DO NOT fear or hate homosexuals.
|
|