Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(6)
Message 1146 of 1309 (742203)
11-18-2014 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1145 by Faith
11-18-2014 12:29 AM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
In perspective, making this minor adjustment to marriage - an adjustment that has NO EFFECT on heterosexual marriage - is the easiest and simplest way. Defining a whole new status and amending every law and regulation to fit it would seem to be a whole lot more effort.
Really it's the obvious simple solution, and there don't seem to be any good objections to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1145 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 12:29 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1150 of 1309 (742212)
11-18-2014 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1148 by Faith
11-18-2014 2:16 AM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
quote:
Seems to me they could live as a couple, and make use of the legal benefits automatically conferred on the natural parent, etc.
That would obviously leave the family - including the children - at a disadvantage. A considerable disadvantage in some cases, such as if anything were to happen to the natural parent. If the benefits of marriage are valuable for raising children, why deny them to gay couples with children ? While allowing childless heterosexual couples to enjoy the benefits?
quote:
I also don't see why the pertinent legal advantages of marriage couldn't just be applied to the gay couple as a block without the marriage part.
Answered before it was asked. Message 1146

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1148 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 2:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1163 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 1:01 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1166 of 1309 (742256)
11-18-2014 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1163 by Faith
11-18-2014 1:01 PM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
quote:
Because gay marriage is a travesty. Marriage is only for a man and a woman.
And you wonder why people think you're a bigot ?
Your personal feelings on the matter don't change the facts. There are real injustices. Giving legal recognition to gay marriage is a simple and effective way of countering these injustices. And if that upsets you, too bad. Keep your religious rules for your Churches marriages, where they belong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1163 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 1:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1167 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 1:17 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1168 of 1309 (742259)
11-18-2014 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1167 by Faith
11-18-2014 1:17 PM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
Oh, of course you don't want to know. There are times when you almost make me wish that Christianity was true. But I'm not that cruel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1167 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 1:17 PM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1174 of 1309 (742265)
11-18-2014 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1170 by Faith
11-18-2014 1:38 PM


Re: Oy. This has nothing to do with personal marriages. Yikes.
What on earth can it mean to say that "marriage is an objective social institution" ? Or at least that can help you. It is objectively true that marriage is a social institution and in a secular state the secular institution of marriage as a legal institution should serve the secular needs of society.
And in the US that is the way that it is supposed to be. The courts are correct to disregard arguments that do not address those issues.
Again, if you want religious marriage with religious rules go to your church. Your church can refuse a church wedding to anyone they disapprove of for whatever reasons seem good to them. And that is the way it should be, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1170 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 1:38 PM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1175 of 1309 (742266)
11-18-2014 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1173 by Faith
11-18-2014 1:44 PM


quote:
Seems to me that everybody here has a sort of block to thinking objectively about a social institution and can only think emotively.
Then produce an objectively demonstrable, rational argument against gay marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1173 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 1:44 PM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1227 of 1309 (748191)
01-23-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1225 by Dr Adequate
01-23-2015 11:23 AM


Re: Second Thoughts
Except that in THIS case the baker agreed to do everything but the offensive slogans. The cake and the inoffensive decorations WERE offered. That is quite a difference, and may be sufficient in itself to give this case a different outcome.
Also, I think he'd have a big problem arguing that anti-gay bigots are a protected class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1225 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2015 11:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1230 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2015 1:05 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1231 of 1309 (748203)
01-23-2015 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1230 by Dr Adequate
01-23-2015 1:05 PM


Re: Second Thoughts
But is he being discriminated against because of his religious beliefs ? This case is much less clear-cut than the cases Faith complained about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1230 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2015 1:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1233 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2015 2:11 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1234 of 1309 (748207)
01-23-2015 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1233 by Dr Adequate
01-23-2015 2:11 PM


Re: Second Thoughts
The point is that nowhere have we seen that the right to equal services goes so far as to demand the right to have absolutely any decoration on the cake desired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1233 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2015 2:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1283 of 1309 (748564)
01-27-2015 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1278 by Faith
01-26-2015 3:33 PM


Faith why do you keep talking about the First Amendment ? It doesn't give you any rights that the Segregationists didn't have. You accept that the laws were Constitutional when they gave Blacks the right to service, overriding the religious beliefs of the Segregationists. You have no legal reasoning that would allow a different outcome - I know, I asked.
So really, you've accepted that First Amendment rights are NOT being violated here. So why keep harping on about it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1278 by Faith, posted 01-26-2015 3:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1285 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 4:11 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(4)
Message 1286 of 1309 (748574)
01-27-2015 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1285 by Faith
01-27-2015 4:11 AM


And now you're lying Faith. The Segregationists - or many of them at least - were conservative Christians who argued that segregation was their Christian belief. So I am arguing on the basis of beliefs that Christians at the least claimed to hold at the time the laws were passed. And in fact, a former member here, now deceased, was one of these Christians.
What is more, the First Amendment does not single out Christianity for special protection, nor has it ever been the case that it gives a free pass to actions motivated by religious belief. Belief is given unconditional protection, actions receive much more limited protection. That's why a religious belief that the races should remain separate is not a valid legal excuse for excluding Blacks, or Asians or anyone from a business.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1285 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 4:11 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(6)
Message 1292 of 1309 (748673)
01-28-2015 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1291 by Faith
01-27-2015 11:37 PM


quote:
There are interesting things written about the First Amendment in the early years that argue that Christianity was protected by it above all others, because society needs it, and that it was very clear that beliefs that were dangerous to the state (papal Rome, of course, and today it would be particularly Islam if it weren't for PC that says otherwise) or to anybody were not meant to be protected by it. We now have revisionist reinterpretations that destroy its whole purpose of course, not only protecting Romanism and Islam, but even protecting evils such as pornography and abortion and sodomy.
The "interesting things" ARE "evil revisionist reinterpretations that destroy it's whole purpose."
In reality Jefferson himself argued for protection of Islam, and the idea that Catholics were excluded is absurd.
The Bill of Rights was about guaranteeing freedom. The whole idea that it meant to permit a Protestant tyranny as you assert is a clear example of revisionism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1291 by Faith, posted 01-27-2015 11:37 PM Faith has 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