Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 4 of 304 (317212)
06-03-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
06-03-2006 1:09 PM


I think you've misrepresented me, Schraf. It would help if you added a link to show where I supposedly said that, as it's a matter of context. I believe I was adapting to various things you said. If you said it was a right then I said it was a right that one had to be qualifed for, etc.
Also, the comparison between opposition to gay marriage and opposition to interracial marriage is false. Marriage was called a right in that legal case for heterosexual couples. Your extending it to gays is not justified, a form of begging the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 06-03-2006 1:09 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 06-03-2006 4:12 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 304 (317252)
06-03-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Damouse
06-03-2006 3:23 PM


Re: Basic Civil Rights
the US is supposed to be about freedom not limited by anyone, not freedom that is under the jurisdiction and morality of the church. so thats an EXTREEME yes. I may not like the idea of homosexuality, but it harms me not. I also dont like the idea of pornography, but again thats one of those rights that you CANNOT restrict or take away (i.e. speech).
It is really really strange, considering the adamant conviction expressed on this point by so many here, that this nation which GAVE us the first amendment, and was known throughout the world for its experiment in civil rights, and practically synonymous with the word "freedom" got by just fine for the first 200 years of its existence during which it LEGALLY PROHIBITED both pornography and homosexual acts.
But does this cause any of you to rethink what is really MEANT by freedom and rights such as the right of free speech? Oddly, no, you manage to convince yourselves that whatever SEEMS to you it should mean is what it MUST mean.
I suppose there is some confusion over the fact that slavery was also permitted in this free nation. Seems to make you all trip over your own feet, so unable are you to distinguish between valid and invalid meanings of the terms.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 3:23 PM Damouse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 06-03-2006 3:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 9 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 4:17 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 304 (317260)
06-03-2006 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
06-03-2006 4:12 PM


Of course, the decision says "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,", not "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of heterosexuals and not gays."
Don't be stupid. The way you read it means there are no qualifications for marriage whatever. Siblings could marry. Well, it's a "basic civil right of man." You could marry a child or a dog. But that hasn't been allowed in the West. Until now of course. I suppose it's coming considering this kind of confused thinking you are so committed to.
And I would really appreciate a link. I believe you misrepresented me. Thank you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 06-03-2006 4:12 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 4:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 12 by gearkat, posted 06-03-2006 4:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 06-03-2006 11:03 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 304 (317279)
06-03-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by gearkat
06-03-2006 4:53 PM


[qs] "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." [/qxs]
If they had known that idiots were going to come along in a few decades and claim that gays were meant to be included in something intended always and forever for heterosexual couples, they would have changed the wording, but such idiocies never occurred to anyone prior to very recent times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by gearkat, posted 06-03-2006 4:53 PM gearkat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 06-03-2006 5:18 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 304 (317290)
06-03-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ringo
06-03-2006 5:18 PM


"If they had known that idiots were going to come along in a few decades and claim that blacks and women were meant to be included in something intended always and forever for white males, they would have changed the wording, but such idiocies never occurred to anyone prior to very recent times."
Always and forever refers to the entire world over all history. Don't you know how to read?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 06-03-2006 5:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 06-03-2006 5:40 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 20 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 6:07 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 304 (317428)
06-04-2006 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
06-03-2006 11:03 PM


You've offered the argument that it's against God's intention for marriage, but since there is no God, that's not a compelling argument.
I do get so tired of having this argument imputed to me that I have not made. That has not been my argument against gay marriage. It's definitely a true argument, and it will be on that basis that God will judge the nation for legalizing gay marriage if it comes to that, as it looks to me like it may.
But that has not been my argument. The fact that no culture on earth has ever recognized gay marriage has been my argument. Why do you put words in my mouth? Other parts of my argument that I haven't even gotten around to are that homosexuality is such a travesty of sex that it can only make a greater travesty of this universal institution of marriage than it has already been made by rampant divorce and other abuses. Oh well, might as well just destroy marriage altogether, why not, it's so far gone anyway.
Let's take away all benefits that attach to marriage. Why shouldn't single people get such benefits if gays can?
Let's be absolutely clear on that point. By opposing gay marriage you're taking the position that it should be very, very hard for a gay couple to work in a partnership and maintain a family. That it should be very, very hard for them to provide for and protect their children, especially during hard times. Why should we take these actions?
Yes it should be very very difficult indeed. Because destroying marriage is not the right way to help people. And homosexuals have no business raising families unless they just happen to be stuck with them from previous marriages and in that case whatever benefits are available to single parents must surely be available to them, and if they are not then they do not deserve any benefits that single parents don't get.
Acting as if homosexuality is normal is the biggest problem, treating an aberration as if it were merely a sexual option rather than a biological or psychological mistake, and conveying that idea to the younger generation. That's the great crime. Too bad there are so few with the common sense to recognize this obvious fundamental fact of nature.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 06-03-2006 11:03 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by subbie, posted 06-04-2006 2:54 AM Faith has replied
 Message 55 by nator, posted 06-04-2006 7:18 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 304 (317469)
06-04-2006 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by subbie
06-04-2006 2:54 AM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
I've given my arguments. Haven't used religion at all in them.
The idea of marriage is what will be destroyed if you allow people who are unqualified for it to have it.
Of course gays want marriage, it will supposedly legitimize them. It won't, it will only make marriage a ridiculous travesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by subbie, posted 06-04-2006 2:54 AM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 06-04-2006 3:01 AM Faith has replied
 Message 36 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2006 3:02 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 37 by DrJones*, posted 06-04-2006 3:03 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 56 by nator, posted 06-04-2006 7:21 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 38 of 304 (317473)
06-04-2006 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by ringo
06-04-2006 3:01 AM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
Close relatives are unqualified.
Children without parental consent are unqualified.
It used to be you had to pass a Wassermann test. That was a qualification of sorts.
Gays have no reason whatever for marriage. Marriage has always been for the sanctifying of heterosexual unions, with the potential of childbearing. No such thing exists between gays. The idea that two men need the protection of the state for their "relationship" is sick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 06-04-2006 3:01 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ringo, posted 06-04-2006 3:10 AM Faith has replied
 Message 40 by DrJones*, posted 06-04-2006 3:11 AM Faith has replied
 Message 41 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2006 3:12 AM Faith has replied
 Message 57 by nator, posted 06-04-2006 7:24 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 42 of 304 (317480)
06-04-2006 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by arachnophilia
06-04-2006 3:12 AM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
Marriage is between heterosexuals because of the POTENTIAL for children, AS I SAID. It doesn't matter whether they have them or not. It is a uniting of heterosexuals, who together are capable of it and gays are not. The idea is a joke. Actually having children is not the point. The point was always the protection of children, and yes, the woman, within the family by the man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2006 3:12 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2006 3:38 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 58 by nator, posted 06-04-2006 7:26 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 43 of 304 (317481)
06-04-2006 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ringo
06-04-2006 3:10 AM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
Common sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ringo, posted 06-04-2006 3:10 AM ringo has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 304 (317482)
06-04-2006 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by DrJones*
06-04-2006 3:11 AM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
Actually I think maybe YOU're the "sick" one since you keep bringing up this irrelevancy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by DrJones*, posted 06-04-2006 3:11 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by DrJones*, posted 06-04-2006 3:35 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 48 of 304 (317495)
06-04-2006 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by rgb
06-04-2006 4:10 AM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
Heterosexuality is the qualification, whether or not fecundity is possible. The union of heterosexuals has always been the point of marriage, and since procreation is ONLY possible to heterosexuality heterosexuality stands for it, and ONLY heterosexuality qualifies for marriage whether or not actual procreative ability or intention is present. This is intuitively obvious to anyone with common sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by rgb, posted 06-04-2006 4:10 AM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2006 7:06 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 60 by ohnhai, posted 06-04-2006 7:32 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 76 by rgb, posted 06-04-2006 12:46 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 49 of 304 (317496)
06-04-2006 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by DrJones*
06-04-2006 3:35 AM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
Your comparison of normal people with abnormal people is bogus. To compare a sexual aberration with race is sick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by DrJones*, posted 06-04-2006 3:35 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by RickJB, posted 06-04-2006 5:01 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 53 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2006 7:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 59 by nator, posted 06-04-2006 7:28 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 94 by DrJones*, posted 06-04-2006 6:10 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 72 of 304 (317587)
06-04-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by arachnophilia
06-04-2006 7:32 AM


Any that are NOW deciding to recognize gay marriage don't count. That would just be a symptom of the world going to hell in a handbasket in our time. Some have asserted that it has been recognized in the past, but nobody came up with any evidence for that. All I know is that Nero tried to marry a male friend and was criticized by a Roman official for it. It would figure that Nero would mock marriage of course.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2006 7:32 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 73 of 304 (317588)
06-04-2006 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
06-04-2006 7:38 AM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
It IS an aberration. That is obvious to anyone with common sense. Bigotry is saying it isn't an aberration. Silly politically correct bigotry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 06-04-2006 7:38 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 3:07 AM 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