In other news

Posted 521 day(s) ago by okie523203 Views 220 Replies
Results 51 to 100 of 221
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4
  1. #51
    Originally Posted by brokebacksooner View Post
    Yet you use the same example again and again. And that's really not a no to my question.
    BBS, weren't the bakers also in violation of State anti-discrimination law?

    I believe you said that you wouldn't bother giving your money to people with that view, but they were still violating the law. Or something to that effect...

  2. #52
    brokebacksooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,917
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    2500
    Location
    Miami, FL

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    BBS, weren't the bakers also in violation of State anti-discrimination law?

    I believe you said that you wouldn't bother giving your money to people with that view, but they were still violating the law. Or something to that effect...
    Don't remember the particulars; I've slept since then. Just busting Cub's chops for using the same argument technique he accused cbs of using.
    The following users like this post: oucub23


  3. #53
    Originally Posted by brokebacksooner View Post
    Don't remember the particulars; I've slept since then. Just busting Cub's chops for using the same argument technique he accused cbs of using.
    Not exactly the same--but you know that.
    The following users like this post: brokebacksooner


  4. #54
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    A complete separation would require laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That goes against a founding principle.
    A separation of church and state is about the government not the people's free right to believe in whatever deity they want to.

  5. #55
    Originally Posted by cbsooner View Post
    A separation of church and state is about the government not the people's free right to believe in whatever deity they want to.
    You are incorrect. The separation is a guarantee that the government won't interfere with people's right--it's a negative liberty restricting the government's reach.

    Do you know the origins of those words? They aren't in the Constitution. The text of the first simply says Congress isn't going to make any laws about it. The origin of the phrase you keep using was a letter from Jefferson to a church, ensuring that the government would not interfere with them.

  6. #56
    The government should not have any involvement in marriage.

    There should be some legal union that any 2 (or more!) consenting adults can enter into that grants executorship and those sorts of legal rights. No tax breaks or any of that bullshit that discriminates against single people.

    Then straight people, gay people, polygamists, incestuous people, whomever... Can have their own marriage ceremony sanctioned by any religion or tribe or anything but the federal government.
    The following users like this post: DHF


  7. #57
    Originally Posted by Jbaker View Post
    The government should not have any involvement in marriage.

    There should be some legal union that any 2 (or more!) consenting adults can enter into that grants executorship and those sorts of legal rights. No tax breaks or any of that bullshit that discriminates against single people.

    Then straight people, gay people, polygamists, incestuous people, whomever... Can have their own marriage ceremony sanctioned by any religion or tribe or anything but the federal government.
    I have been arguing this for four years now.

  8. #58
    IndySooner's Avatar
    Posts
    4,144
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    3839
    Location
    Edmond

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Point, but i submit that's because the places it's legal are the most liberal parts of the country.
    Iowa is not "one of the most liberal" parts of the country. It is very independent as a whole.

  9. #59
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Do you know the origins of those words? They aren't in the Constitution. The text of the first simply says Congress isn't going to make any laws about it. The origin of the phrase you keep using was a letter from Jefferson to a church, ensuring that the government would not interfere with them.
    You've contended in several other threads that we should look to the founding fathers' intent in determining the meaning of the Constitution. Given your previous position, you must agree with Jefferson on this point.

  10. #60
    tcrb's Avatar
    Posts
    4,447
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Behind enemy lines

    Originally Posted by IndySooner View Post
    Iowa is not "one of the most liberal" parts of the country. It is very independent as a whole.
    Since 1984, Iowa has gone red only once (in 2004 by the slimmest of margins...50%-49%).

    Agree that it's not one of the most liberal state in the nation, but definitely more liberal than conservative for almost 3 decades now.

  11. #61
    Originally Posted by Sinatra View Post
    You've contended in several other threads that we should look to the founding fathers' intent in determining the meaning of the Constitution. Given your previous position, you must agree with Jefferson on this point.
    I don't disagree with TJ. What I do disagree with is the use of his statement in a way that he didn't intend. His 'wall' was a guarantee to the Danbury Baptists that the government wouldn't interfere with them--not that he would purge religion from the government.

  12. #62
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    The annoying thing is that everyone wants to say its about equal protection under the law. It's not though--because my solution does that. It's not about marriage either, because gays can marry right now.
    No, the annoying thing is that one set of population wants to treat another as second class citizens by not affording them the same priveleges they themselves enjoy. Even with the exact same benefits, a different name(your solution) isn't equality.
    The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma


  13. #63
    Originally Posted by URNotserious View Post
    No, the annoying thing is that one set of population wants to treat another as second class citizens by not affording them the same priveleges they themselves enjoy. Even with the exact same benefits, a different name(your solution) isn't equality.
    Restricting state recognized marriage to man and woman performed by minister, and everything else to CU is as close as we are likely to get for awhile.

    You're overcooking the hyperbole again. Getting or not getting a tax break isn't treating people as second class citizens. Single people aren't second class citizens.

    Conservatives need to smarten up on this issue though. Lower taxes and less government control of your property is a conservative position. (It is a bit amusing though that some of the most strident supporters are the same people pushing for the elimination of the marriage tax credit.) Instead, they get so busy worrying about protecting marriage they forget to offer an alternative. The reason is simple--many believe homosexuality is a sin. Marriage has traditionally been a religious union. Allowing gays to marry then becomes a direct assault on their religious beliefs--that's why naming it something else can effectively make the case for passage.

    There's not going to be a lot of flex from the religious community in the short term. Turn this from 'you're a bigot' to 'let's get equality and protect your beliefs at the same time' and you have a winning position. Religious people are tired of being called horrible things for their beliefs. Abortion is another example--if you're pro-life, you're accused of hating women (which, honestly is a colossally stupid accusation. There are tons of pro-life women and pro-life men such as myself that believe in and advocate daily for full equality.) It has nothing to do with women--it has to do with unborn kids. In the same way, gay marriage has nothing to do with gays--it's about marriage.

    Conservatives are too single minded because of the assault on religion in so many other areas. Liberals are too single minded because they think the right is a bunch of knuckle dragging mouth breathers. Those in power enjoy these positions, because it keeps them in power. Everyone taking a position that eliminates recognition of the problem for both sides and a solution that's effective in protecting all parties is a dupe of those pulling the strings.
    The following users like this post: fdubzou


  14. #64
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Restricting state recognized marriage to man and woman performed by minister, and everything else to CU is as close as we are likely to get for awhile.

    You're overcooking the hyperbole again. Getting or not getting a tax break isn't treating people as second class citizens. Single people aren't second class citizens. .
    This wall of words is an awful thick coat to hide your inner bigot, Cub. But allow me to take it off, layer by layer. Will these straight single people be afforded the same privileges when they marry? Will their union be called a marriage or a Civil Union? Dont answer that, because we already know the answer. Then they arent second class citizens.

    Will the gays be afforded the same privileges when they get married? Then they ARE(being treated like) second class citizens.

    Your comparison of single people to the Gay population is not the same thing. You're trying to compare apples to oranges. What would be a more apt comparison for that is Single people = Other citizens of US under the age of 21 when it comes to drinking. Any individual has to cross that mark(of being 21 years of age/get married) to be eligible to enjoy that particular privilege. Be it Black, White, Asian or anyone for that matter but we all get to enjoy it.

    But go ahead and keep claiming that its(Single population and Gays) one and the same thing. Heh.


    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Conservatives need to smarten up on this issue though. Lower taxes and less government control of your property is a conservative position. (It is a bit amusing though that some of the most strident supporters are the same people pushing for the elimination of the marriage tax credit.).
    I cant say that I disagree with this position, less taxes: Yes. Less Govt control: Yes.

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Instead, they get so busy worrying about protecting marriage they forget to offer an alternative. The reason is simple--many believe homosexuality is a sin. Marriage has traditionally been a religious union. Allowing gays to marry then becomes a direct assault on their religious beliefs--that's why naming it something else can effectively make the case for passage.
    How and why does your belief from a ridiculous book that requires stoning to discipline and punish people have any bearing on what another individual should be afforded as a privilege? Or what we should do as a country? Especially when the repercussions of these decisions do impact them on a very real basis e.g rights on an adopted child after the death of a parent. Tomorrow Scientologist religious community will all be up in arms about Asians breathing the same air as them. Then Muslims will rise up and demand slaying of non Muslims on account of them not believing in Allah the true saviour. Are we to honor all of them?

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    There's not going to be a lot of flex from the religious community in the short term. Turn this from 'you're a bigot' to 'let's get equality and protect your beliefs at the same time' and you have a winning position. Religious people are tired of being called horrible things for their beliefs.
    This particular quote from you is rich, just rich. What you're advocating here is that we should respect the beliefs of Christians(more than any other religion) be careful and tread lightly about calling these bigots, a bigot because this hurts their feelings. While at the same time trample on the rights of other citizens on behest of these bigots, because well it says so in their book. Why should we as a country hold THEIR christian beliefs at a higher standard than any other religion? By the by this the very definition of bigotry.

    bigotry according to Merriam Webster: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

    Unless we are also happy to accept Quran that says dont eat pork, so ban pork for everyone now. Geeta does one better, only vegetarian so ban all meat.

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Abortion is another example--if you're pro-life, you're accused of hating women (which, honestly is a colossally stupid accusation. There are tons of pro-life women and pro-life men such as myself that believe in and advocate daily for full equality.) It has nothing to do with women--it has to do with unborn kids. In the same way, gay marriage has nothing to do with gays--it's about marriage.

    But for the sake of Jesus Christ, this definition of marriage is in the bible which has no bearing on a Jewish Gay guy or a Buddhist Gay guy or a Bahai. Just like the quote from Quran about not eating pork has absolutely no bearing on YOU. Can you really not see that?

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Conservatives are too single minded because of the assault on religion in so many other areas. Liberals are too single minded because they think the right is a bunch of knuckle dragging mouth breathers. Those in power enjoy these positions, because it keeps them in power. Everyone taking a position that eliminates recognition of the problem for both sides and a solution that's effective in protecting all parties is a dupe of those pulling the strings
    Or maybe Gay marriage opposers should take a hard look at themselves and think about what they're saying. Understand what compassion and equality is all about. Replace the Gay population with an ethnic group for instance; if we as a soceity were to say that African Americans from now on that if they were to get married we will not recognize it but call it a Civil union. Would you consider that bigotry? Or just ignore it by saying.....Well thats what I believe.

    We did something like that not very long ago.
    The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma


  15. #65
    brokebacksooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,917
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    2500
    Location
    Miami, FL

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Restricting state recognized marriage to man and woman performed by minister, and everything else to CU is as close as we are likely to get for awhile.

    You're overcooking the hyperbole again. Getting or not getting a tax break isn't treating people as second class citizens. Single people aren't second class citizens.

    Conservatives need to smarten up on this issue though. Lower taxes and less government control of your property is a conservative position. (It is a bit amusing though that some of the most strident supporters are the same people pushing for the elimination of the marriage tax credit.) Instead, they get so busy worrying about protecting marriage they forget to offer an alternative. The reason is simple--many believe homosexuality is a sin. Marriage has traditionally been a religious union. Allowing gays to marry then becomes a direct assault on their religious beliefs--that's why naming it something else can effectively make the case for passage.

    There's not going to be a lot of flex from the religious community in the short term. Turn this from 'you're a bigot' to 'let's get equality and protect your beliefs at the same time' and you have a winning position. Religious people are tired of being called horrible things for their beliefs. Abortion is another example--if you're pro-life, you're accused of hating women (which, honestly is a colossally stupid accusation. There are tons of pro-life women and pro-life men such as myself that believe in and advocate daily for full equality.) It has nothing to do with women--it has to do with unborn kids. In the same way, gay marriage has nothing to do with gays--it's about marriage.

    Conservatives are too single minded because of the assault on religion in so many other areas. Liberals are too single minded because they think the right is a bunch of knuckle dragging mouth breathers. Those in power enjoy these positions, because it keeps them in power. Everyone taking a position that eliminates recognition of the problem for both sides and a solution that's effective in protecting all parties is a dupe of those pulling the strings.
    Very little has to do with a tax break. Most couples I know want it for hospitalization and healthcare issues and estate reasons.

    If it was truly about marriage; more churches would ban divorced people from getting married in their church for the second, third, tenth time and keep them from communion.

  16. #66
    Originally Posted by brokebacksooner View Post
    Very little has to do with a tax break. Most couples I know want it for hospitalization and healthcare issues and estate reasons.

    If it was truly about marriage; more churches would ban divorced people from getting married in their church for the second, third, tenth time and keep them from communion.
    If it was truly about equality under the law, CU would suffice.

    Isn't hospital stuff already clear?

  17. #67
    brokebacksooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,917
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    2500
    Location
    Miami, FL

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    If it was truly about equality under the law, CU would suffice.

    as long as every Brittany, Liz and J-lo that gets married multiple times and/or outside a church has what is called a CU, that's fine. You going to be the one to tell all of them they are no longer married but are "civilly unioned"?

  18. #68
    Originally Posted by brokebacksooner View Post
    as long as every Brittany, Liz and J-lo that gets married multiple times and/or outside a church has what is called a CU, that's fine. You going to be the one to tell all of them they are no longer married but are "civilly unioned"?
    Anyone married outside the church is cu'ed. If we are looking at it strictly from a governmental thing, it makes even more sense. Sole proprietorships, llc's, corporations, etc all have different requirements to be recognized--because they are all different types of unions.

  19. #69
    brokebacksooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,917
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    2500
    Location
    Miami, FL

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Anyone married outside the church is cu'ed. If we are looking at it strictly from a governmental thing, it makes even more sense. Sole proprietorships, llc's, corporations, etc all have different requirements to be recognized--because they are all different types of unions.
    You'll have a harder time selling that than I will of selling gay marriage; but go for it. Just to be clear "outside the church" means outside an actual church building, even if it's performed by a minister of the cloth...

  20. #70
    Originally Posted by brokebacksooner View Post
    You'll have a harder time selling that than I will of selling gay marriage; but go for it. Just to be clear "outside the church" means outside an actual church building, even if it's performed by a minister of the cloth...
    That's details. I'm trying to find something that gets equal protection for gays but doesn't make religious folks feel like they're being ignored or that their beliefs are being usurped by the gov.

  21. #71
    Originally Posted by brokebacksooner View Post
    You'll have a harder time selling that than I will of selling gay marriage; but go for it. Just to be clear "outside the church" means outside an actual church building, even if it's performed by a minister of the cloth...
    Why outside the building? I don't understand that.

  22. #72
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Anyone married outside the church is cu'ed. If we are looking at it strictly from a governmental thing, it makes even more sense. Sole proprietorships, llc's, corporations, etc all have different requirements to be recognized--because they are all different types of unions.
    Oh boy. What about Buddhists who get married in a buddhist ceremony? Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Bahaiis? Sikhs? I am pretty sure they consider themselves married and introduce themselves as a married couple. Marriage isn't just a Christian institution as it existed before this religion ever did. The level of ignorance in this thread is just alarming.

  23. #73
    Originally Posted by URNotserious View Post
    Oh boy. What about Buddhists who get married in a buddhist ceremony? Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Bahaiis? Sikhs? I am pretty sure they consider themselves married and introduce themselves as a married couple. Marriage isn't just a Christian institution as it existed before this religion ever did. The level of ignorance in this thread is just alarming.
    And those are ceremonies in the church. They are religious unions aren't they?

  24. #74
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    And those are ceremonies in the church. They are religious unions aren't they?
    If Christian ceremonies in churches are religious unions then so are they, if they're weddings, then so are they.

    But just for clarification, are you referring to the word "church" as in a generic word for church/mosque/temple/gurdwara?

  25. #75
    Originally Posted by URNotserious View Post
    If Christian ceremonies in churches are religious unions then so are they, if they're weddings, then so are they.

    But just for clarification, are you referring to the word "church" as in a generic word for church/mosque/temple/gurdwara?
    Yea, but even more generic than that. Ordained 'person of the cloth' if you will. In the church as in in the church's eyes. BB had some reservations and said w/i the building--I'm not sure why.

  26. #76
    lokifz1's Avatar
    Posts
    1,737
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Deep end of the gene pool.

    The sister wives need to get thier legal marriage on.

  27. #77
    I will say, cub is not a bigot, but he is on the wrong side of history here and is coming off as a bit of a segregation apologist in here.

    Is still don't know how someone who bills them self as conservative is OK with the state government telling churches certain members can get married and certain members can get unioned, or whatever the verb would be.

  28. #78
    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    I will say, cub is not a bigot, but he is on the wrong side of history here and is coming off as a bit of a segregation apologist in here.

    Is still don't know how someone who bills them self as conservative is OK with the state government telling churches certain members can get married and certain members can get unioned, or whatever the verb would be.
    I'm not saying anything about the state telling the Church what to do. We must maintain a wall of separation there. What I am saying is what the state will recognize as a marriage and what it will recognize as a civil union--much the same as what it recognizes as a sp or scorp.

    Was Clinton on the wrong side of history when he got DADT through? Or was he helping advance gay rights? It depends on perspective I guess--this is the same.

  29. #79
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    I'm not saying anything about the state telling the Church what to do. We must maintain a wall of separation there. What I am saying is what the state will recognize as a marriage and what it will recognize as a civil union--much the same as what it recognizes as a sp or scorp.
    But what you are saying is that even if a minister wants to marry two gay people, the minister can only get the state to recognize it as a union? Your way may be better because it will get blown to pieces by the first progressive church that decides to sue.

    You are talking about protecting the feelings of anti gay Christians, what about pro gay Christians like the UCC denomination? Do certain Christians deserve their feelings to be validated more than others?

    Was Clinton on the wrong side of history when he got DADT through? Or was he helping advance gay rights? It depends on perspective I guess--this is the same.
    Not really the same thing. I don't really have an opinion on don't ask don't tell because it is not a policy anymore. That issue has been settled.

  30. #80
    Originally Posted by lokifz1 View Post
    The sister wives need to get thier legal marriage on.
    I don't really care what adults want to do. Though it could get married if there are kids involved.

  31. #81
    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    I have been arguing this for four years now.
    How very libertarian of you.

    There is some hope for you yet.

  32. #82
    Originally Posted by Teo9969 View Post
    How very libertarian of you.

    There is some hope for you yet.
    On a plane I am a center-libertarian, in america that makes me a socialist. But I have argued that marriage belongs to the churches, long before I heard or knew of the libertarian movement.

  33. #83
    brokebacksooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,917
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    2500
    Location
    Miami, FL

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Why outside the building? I don't understand that.
    Because you breeders cheat. In the parking lot of a bar with a guy who got ordained on line and bam; you have a "marriage".
    2 users like brokebacksooner's post: OnlyOneOklahoma, oucub23


  34. #84
    Originally Posted by brokebacksooner View Post
    Because you breeders cheat. In the parking lot of a bar with a guy who got ordained on line and bam; you have a "marriage".
    Ah okay. Ya, that's why I said 'of the cloth.' My bil is an Internet ordained 'minister' that can perform weddings. Shouldn't be a marriage IMO.

  35. #85
    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    But what you are saying is that even if a minister wants to marry two gay people, the minister can only get the state to recognize it as a union? Your way may be better because it will get blown to pieces by the first progressive church that decides to sue.

    You are talking about protecting the feelings of anti gay Christians, what about pro gay Christians like the UCC denomination? Do certain Christians deserve their feelings to be validated more than others?



    Not really the same thing. I don't really have an opinion on don't ask don't tell because it is not a policy anymore. That issue has been settled.
    Yo, cub.

  36. #86
    Not feelings--religious belief. A marriage is performed by an actual minister (or rabbi, imam, priest, etc) and it consists of a man and woman. Civil unions encompass ceremonies performed by judges, e-preachers, etc and include gay or straight relationships.

  37. #87
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Not feelings--religious belief. A marriage is performed by an actual minister (or rabbi, imam, priest, etc) and it consists of a man and woman. Civil unions encompass ceremonies performed by judges, e-preachers, etc and include gay or straight relationships.
    I am specifically talking about a seminarian with a PhD. performing a marriage in the Christian church they were ordained in, like many UCC ministers. Why is it ok for the state to tell that 'man of the cloth' that they are performing a civil union, but if the 'man of the cloth' performs the same ceremony for a straight couple 30 minutes later, it is a marriage?

  38. #88
    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    I am specifically talking about a seminarian with a PhD. performing a marriage in the Christian church they were ordained in, like many UCC ministers. Why is it ok for the state to tell that 'man of the cloth' that they are performing a civil union, but if the 'man of the cloth' performs the same ceremony for a straight couple 30 minutes later, it is a marriage?
    Because marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Why does an accountant do different paperwork to incorporate an individual than he/she would a large company with a board of directors?

  39. #89
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Because marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Why does an accountant do different paperwork to incorporate an individual than he/she would a large company with a board of directors?
    According to whom? Bible? Why is that thought or point of view more important than:

    According to Quran where, marriage is a union between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman.

    According to Buddhism where, homosexuality isn't a sin and is for following laws of the land when it comes to marriage. So if they were to allow Gays to marry, they would be all for it.

    According to Hinduism where, homosexuality isn't a sin either and they believe in a life more transcendant than the current one so do not care if they do get married.

    Now tell me why ONLY ONE of these views are more important than the other?

  40. #90
    Originally Posted by URNotserious View Post
    According to whom? Bible? Why is that thought or point of view more important than:

    According to Quran where, marriage is a union between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman.

    According to Buddhism where, homosexuality isn't a sin and is for following laws of the land when it comes to marriage. So if they were to allow Gays to marry, they would be all for it.

    According to Hinduism where, homosexuality isn't a sin either and they believe in a life more transcendant than the current one so do not care if they do get married.

    Now tell me why ONLY ONE of these views are more important than the other?
    Why? Would anything I said change your mind? I'm pretty sure no, since I recall your post earlier in the thread disparaging people of faith as fools or some such. I could explain to you the heritage of the country and our traditions, and their being rooted in a Judeo-Christian ethos, but you would dismiss that I'm sure. Out of curiosity, are you as quick to dismiss and condemn the Hindu traditions of a country like India? Or the Muslim traditions of a country like Turkey? Perhaps those foolish Buddhists should just get over to themselves and stop resisting in Tibet? The basis for marriage is rooted in who we are and where we came from. Treating marriage as it has traditionally been observed in this country, while ridiculous to you, is no different to me than Christmas being a holiday is.

  41. #91
    Are Christians who accept homosexual marriage, Christians in your view cub?

  42. #92
    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    Are Christians who accept homosexual marriage, Christians in your view cub?
    I'm not the one who judges Christians' worthiness on this board my friend. I'll gladly leave that to those that deem themselves worthy of such an undertaking.

    I will say though I don't think that what makes us Christians is what we accept from others, but rather what we expect from ourselves.

  43. #93
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Why? Would anything I said change your mind?.
    Not unless you said something that isn't inherently bigotted. As in, my point of view/religion and religious views are more important than you which you prove here:

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    I could explain to you the heritage of the country and our traditions, and their being rooted in a Judeo-Christian ethos, but you would dismiss that I'm sure.
    Oh btw, this is America a secular country where your Christian views hold no more importance than a Muslim or a Jew. For someone who wants to toe the "I am not a bigot line" for religious people, you may want to look up the definition in one of my posts above.

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Out of curiosity, are you as quick to dismiss and condemn the Hindu traditions of a country like India?.
    In the 19th century a certain very small part of India had a tradition called 'Sati' where once a woman becomes a widow had to sacrifice herself after her husband as some of those ****s believed that was her way to get to heaven. To answer your question, I would be extremely quick to dismiss, criticize and abolish it.

    Would you condemn that behavior or pass it off as tradition and beliefs or oppose it? If you were an Indian, my guess is you would be the one front in line holding the torch trying to follow that tradition regardless of how painful it maybe for the victim at hand because to you it is as important as Diwali.

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    The basis for marriage is rooted in who we are and where we came from. Treating marriage as it has traditionally been observed in this country, while ridiculous to you, is no different to me than Christmas being a holiday is.
    If I said my religion of Steroid-islam tells me everyone that isnt a Steroid-Islam follower is an infidel and deserves death, does that make it OK? No, I might be a believer and a traditionalist but a menace to soceity nevertheless.

    All you're doing is trying to hide your bigotry behind a thin veil that you call tradition, religion and beliefs. We see you though, quite clearly too.

  44. #94
    It's interesting you lament my supposed bigotry while espousing your loathing for Christianity isn't it?

    1.
    stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

    It appears I am not the one that fits the definition. I have shown no lack of tolerance of any differing opinions, nor have I been insulting to anyone that holds a different belief than my own. Can you say as much?
    The following users like this post: fdubzou


  45. #95
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    It's interesting you lament my supposed bigotry while espousing your loathing for Christianity isn't it?

    1.
    stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

    It appears I am not the one that fits the definition. I have shown no lack of tolerance of any differing opinions, nor have I been insulting to anyone that holds a different belief than my own. Can you say as much?
    My loathing isn't of Christianity or any religion. Heck I for one am glad that religions exist. Its of this particular (better than everyone else)belief you hold which makes very real decisions bad consequences in the lives of many Gay people everyday.

  46. #96
    Originally Posted by URNotserious View Post
    My loathing isn't of Christianity or any religion. Heck I for one am glad that religions exist. Its of this particular (better than everyone else)belief you hold which makes very real decisions bad consequences in the lives of many Gay people everyday.
    I assumed disdain when you referred to the Bible as ridiculous.

    Civil unions do nothing you are alleging. Additionally, I've in no way made a claim that one is better than another--simply that the union is different. I've likened this to other groups and how the government recognizes them.

  47. #97
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    I assumed disdain when you referred to the Bible as ridiculous. .
    Even the most ardent of followers do not agree on same verses when it comes to the bible. And hence the term 'ridiculous' to form policies based on it if not for many other reasons to avoid doing that. Hope from our interactions you atleast gathered that I am informed about religions more than just Christianity maybe not an expert. It wouldn't be if I hated them.


    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Civil unions do nothing you are alleging. Additionally, I've in no way made a claim that one is better than another--simply that the union is different. I've likened this to other groups and how the government recognizes them.

    Hesus Cristo!!! Going in circles again????

    Cub: Lets call them Civil Unions
    Me: No we cant because it isn't equality
    Cub: We cant call them 'marriage' because (ONLY) according to Christianity its between a man and a woman. And we have to respect these beliefs (even if they treat Gay Americans as second class citizens.)
    Me: Not relevant as its not for the Christians to define it, not only for Gay Christians but Gay Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Bahais, Agnostics or anyone really.
    Cub: This country is based on Judeo-Christian values so this has to be taken into account and as a result it should reflect that in this country's policies.
    Me: Thats bigotry. Wrong. This is a Secular country, no one cares or should care what bible thinks of anything when it comes to policy. Sorry!
    Cub: Lets call them Civil Unions. As it is a different kind of a union. So Civil Union?


    And now, Me: It isn't different(just because the bible says so). Its a union of two people/human beings/souls and since we call that marriage, it should be called marriage. Not union, not a partnership, not a joint venture, nothing of that sort. Because to short them from any privileges that we have or to call it anything other than marriage will not only be a disservice to them, their families, kids and anyone related to them but also a grand failure on our part as a community, people and country in general.

    SMH.
    The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma

    Last edited by URNotserious; February 26th, 2013 at 12:48 AM.

  48. #98
    Originally Posted by URNotserious View Post
    Even the most ardent of followers do not agree on same verses when it comes to the bible. And hence the term 'ridiculous' to form policies based on it if not for many other reasons to avoid doing that. Hope from our interactions you atleast gathered that I am informed about religions more than just Christianity maybe not an expert. It wouldn't be if I hated them.





    Hesus Cristo!!! Going in circles again????

    Cub: Lets call them Civil Unions
    Me: No we cant because it isn't equality
    Cub: We cant call them 'marriage' because (ONLY) according to Christianity its between a man and a woman. And we have to respect these beliefs (even if they treat Gay Americans as second class citizens.)
    Me: Not relevant as its not for the Christians to define it, not only for Gay Christians but Gay Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Bahais, Agnostics or anyone really.
    Cub: This country is based on Judeo-Christian values so this has to be taken into account and as a result it should reflect that in this country's policies.
    Me: Thats bigotry. Wrong. This is a Secular country, no one cares or should care what bible thinks of anything when it comes to policy. Sorry!
    Cub: Lets call them Civil Unions. As it is a different kind of a union. So Civil Union?


    And now, Me: It isn't different(just because the bible says so). Its a union of two people/human beings/souls and since we call that marriage, it should be called marriage. Not union, not a partnership, not a joint venture, nothing of that sort. Because to short them from any privileges that we have or to call it anything other than marriage will not only be a disservice to them, their families, kids and anyone related to them but also a grand failure on our part as a community, people and country in general.

    SMH.
    It is equality under the law. I don't accept that it's treating anyone as a second class citizen. They are given equality under the law. It has a different name because it's a different type of union. There are tons of different types of unions recognized by the government today--and they have different names. You can keep typing the same things over and over again--it doesn't make them so. My position doesn't fit the definition of bigotry--no matter how many times you say it does.

    Your last paragraph is pure opinion. Telling churches that they will accept and sanction a union that they believe goes against some of the core tenets of their religion is doing exactly what you are alleging I am doing.

    You are 100% right on one point though. We are going in circles. Your position towards the people that oppose gay marriage is 'f em. They're bigots.' My position is protection of both parties. Your position seems to be that it's bigotry to call a cap a hat because it has a brim all the way around it instead of just in the front.

    One last time:
    1.
    stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

    There is absolutely nothing in my position that can be construed as complete or even partial intolerance of gays. There is no intolerance of an opinion saying gays should be married. I am simply offering a differing opinion because I see a lot of problems stemming from the Feds telling states they are going to accept gay marriage--having a different opinion isn't bigotry. You do a disservice to your argument (and yourself) by repeatedly accusing me of bigotry. It seems you are doing the same thing that happens on the abortion debate though--as I've responded to BB on several occasions: it's not about gays, it's about marriage, and the protection of the religion tied to that union.

    We can agree to disagree though. F'em won't work. If SCOTUS takes it up, they will probably kick it to the states. We'll see though.

  49. #99
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,326
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    It is equality under the law. I don't accept that it's treating anyone as a second class citizen. They are given equality under the law. It has a different name because it's a different type of union. There are tons of different types of unions recognized by the government today--and they have different names. You can keep typing the same things over and over again--it doesn't make them so. My position doesn't fit the definition of bigotry--no matter how many times you say it does.
    Oh, hello Mr. Crow!
    The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma


  50. #100
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,074
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1476
    Location
    Moore

    So do you pro gay marriage people care if Church X says they won't marry gay couples, as long as Oklahoma/USA recognizes gay marriages as true marriages same as everyone else?

    I think that's the side I'd lean on. It's not my place to determine who can and can't marry.. but It's also not my place to tell you who you have to marry either.

    Just this dude's opinion though.
    The following users like this post: Troker


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 78
    Last Post: July 6th, 2013, 08:28 AM