|
|
BBS, weren't the bakers also in violation of State anti-discrimination law?Originally Posted by brokebacksooner
Yet you use the same example again and again. And that's really not a no to my question.
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
Not exactly the same--but you know that.
The following users like this post: brokebacksooner
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.
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 bull**** that discriminates against single people.
Then straight people, **** 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
I have been arguing this for four years now.
Iowa is not "one of the most liberal" parts of the country. It is very independent as a whole.
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.
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.
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.
No, the annoying thing is that one set of population wants to treat another as second cl**** 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
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 cl**** citizens. Single people aren't second cl**** 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 ****s to marry then becomes a direct ****ault 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, **** marriage has nothing to do with ****s--it's about marriage.
Conservatives are too single minded because of the ****ault 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
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 cl**** citizens.
Will the ****s be afforded the same privileges when they get married? Then they ARE(being treated like) second cl**** citizens.
Your comparison of single people to the **** 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 ****s) one and the same thing. Heh.
I cant say that I disagree with this position, less taxes: Yes. Less Govt control: Yes.
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?
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.
But for the sake of Jesus Christ, this definition of marriage is in the bible which has no bearing on a Jewish **** guy or a Buddhist **** 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?
Or maybe **** 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 **** 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
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?
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.
You'll have a harder time selling that than I will of selling **** 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 ****s but doesn't make religious folks feel like they're being ignored or that their beliefs are being usurped by the gov.
Why outside the building? I don't understand that.
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?
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.
The sister wives need to get thier legal marriage on.
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 **** rights? It depends on perspective I guess--this is the same.
But what you are saying is that even if a minister wants to marry two **** 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 **** Christians, what about pro **** 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.Was Clinton on the wrong side of history when he got DADT through? Or was he helping advance **** rights? It depends on perspective I guess--this is the same.
I don't really care what adults want to do. Though it could get married if there are kids involved.
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.
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
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.
Yo, cub.
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 encomp**** ceremonies performed by judges, e-preachers, etc and include **** 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?
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 ****s 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.
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.
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:
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.
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 ****holes 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 p**** 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.
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.
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
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 **** people everyday.
I ****umed 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.
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 **** Americans as second cl**** citizens.)
Me: Not relevant as its not for the Christians to define it, not only for **** Christians but **** 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.
Last edited by URNotserious; 02-26-2013 at 12:48 AM.
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
It is equality under the law. I don't accept that it's treating anyone as a second cl**** 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 **** 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 ****s. There is no intolerance of an opinion saying ****s 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 **** 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 ****s, 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.
Oh, hello Mr. Crow!
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
So do you pro **** marriage people care if Church X says they won't marry **** couples, as long as Oklahoma/USA recognizes **** 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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
