Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 304 (318588)
06-07-2006 2:54 AM


Agree to disagree!!
I don't mean to intrude and in no way am I trying to offer any middle ground, but after 2 threads and almost 600 posts, can't we just agree to disagree?

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 2:57 AM rgb has not replied
 Message 275 by Dr Jack, posted 06-07-2006 4:40 AM rgb has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 272 of 304 (318589)
06-07-2006 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by rgb
06-07-2006 2:54 AM


Re: Agree to disagree!!
i'm not agree or disagreeing to anything at just this second. i'm just trying to get faith to explain the logic of position, and the specifics of what here claims actually mean.
it's a pretty reasonable question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by rgb, posted 06-07-2006 2:54 AM rgb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 3:11 AM arachnophilia has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 273 of 304 (318594)
06-07-2006 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by arachnophilia
06-07-2006 2:57 AM


Re: Agree to disagree!!
it's a pretty reasonable question.
Not if it's already been done and ignored or otherwise abused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 2:57 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 4:01 AM Faith has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 274 of 304 (318596)
06-07-2006 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Faith
06-07-2006 3:11 AM


Re: Agree to disagree!!
Not if it's already been done and ignored or otherwise abused.
well, if i have simply missed where you have provided the details and specifics i'd like to know, kindly point me to the post where they were provided.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 3:11 AM Faith has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 275 of 304 (318599)
06-07-2006 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by rgb
06-07-2006 2:54 AM


Re: Agree to disagree!!
No, we can't just agree to disagree.
You can only agree to disagree if what you're arguing over has no real effect; this does. If Faith's side wins, loving couples all over America are denied their civil right to the legal protections and privileges of marriage; while if Schraf's side wins, we will see a wave of immorality sweeping America, the collapse of the family structure that sits at the heart of the social order and the rapid decline of America into depravity.
These are not stakes we can "agree to disagree" over.
Edited by Mr Jack, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by rgb, posted 06-07-2006 2:54 AM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by rgb, posted 06-07-2006 5:27 AM Dr Jack has not replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 304 (318604)
06-07-2006 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Dr Jack
06-07-2006 4:40 AM


Re: Agree to disagree!!
Chances are that this bill will get shot out of the sky before it can even make a landing. And even if it somehow gets through, the country can expect to have court battles for years to come.
It is now clear that people like faith will not give into the immorality of gay union. It is also clear that there is no chance on Mount Olympus that you will agree that gay marriage will destroy the very fabric of society as we know it.
Arach, after over a dozen posts of asking faith to clarify, don't you think it's pretty clear she's not going to no matter what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Dr Jack, posted 06-07-2006 4:40 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by nator, posted 06-07-2006 7:31 AM rgb has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 277 of 304 (318613)
06-07-2006 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
06-07-2006 12:02 AM


Faith, I've requested a reply 4 times now
quote:
Nobody is addressing me any more so I'd appreciate it if you'd change the subtitle to suit the actual content of the conversation.
I addressed you directly several times regarding the questions I asked in message #249 of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 12:02 AM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 278 of 304 (318614)
06-07-2006 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Faith
06-07-2006 2:01 AM


Re: Please change subtitles
quote:
The questions aren't hard, but most if it ignores that I've already answered it, and the rest is just silly, and I have no more interest in this thread. Sorry.
That's a bail if I ever saw one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 2:01 AM Faith has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 279 of 304 (318615)
06-07-2006 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Faith
06-07-2006 2:17 AM


Re: Please change subtitles
You may feel you have answered the other questions resolutly but my direct question regarding the tansexuals that get married most cirtainly has not.
I would be interested in your views.
to re-state. (again)

Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 2:17 AM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 280 of 304 (318618)
06-07-2006 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by rgb
06-07-2006 5:27 AM


Re: Agree to disagree!!
quote:
after over a dozen posts of asking faith to clarify, don't you think it's pretty clear she's not going to no matter what?
Yes.
However, it is important to demonstrate (by asking her to clarify) the weakness of her argument and reasons for believing as she does.
None of us for a moment believe that Faith will ever change her opinion, but the fence-sitting lurkers need to see how very weak her position is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by rgb, posted 06-07-2006 5:27 AM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by rgb, posted 06-07-2006 12:29 PM nator has not replied

ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 6003 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 281 of 304 (318624)
06-07-2006 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by arachnophilia
06-07-2006 2:43 AM


Gay marriage represents "anything goes"
"it'll destroy society as we know it." maybe you see the connection, but the rest of us don't. i'm just trying to understand your logic.
I get Faith's logic, and I agree with her assessment on decline of society.
History has shown that people "pull together" and succeed better as a nation when the population has a key set of values for the population. For example, ethnic and religious conflict (i.e. set of values of a population) frequently boil over into violence and degradation.
Gay marriage is clearly unpopular with the population, and I believe most people recognize that the practice and openness of homosexuality promotes the destruction of a core set of values and traditions that represents the masses' unity and goals for their kids to look up to.
It is not just this issue that is tearing this country apart. It is just another cog in a destructive wheel churning against values of the majority.

'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 2:43 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Yaro, posted 06-07-2006 8:52 AM ThingsChange has not replied

watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 304 (318626)
06-07-2006 7:58 AM


Marriage for all?
Hey im not sure if this has been mentioned earlier in this discussion, because I really didnt have time to read 270 posts. But has it been mentioned that marriage is a christian tradition. Obviously bible doctrine is clearly against homosexuality, and biblically marraige is where a man and woman are united into one. (please read the next parragraph before bombarding me with abuse)
Im not saying that people dont have the right to choose to be gay, which I believe they do. But the basic concept of the term "marriage" is that it is the joining of a man and a woman. Over in my little corner of the world in New Zealand, gay marriage rights are a hot topic. Gay people in New Zealand can have what is called a civil union. They have all the same rights as married couples (dont quote me on that 100%, I think gay couple adoption is still being discussed) but they are not "married" as such.
I think people have the right to choose to be homosexual. But they should not try to take what was not intended for them, marriage.
p.s. As for what I read on the first page of this thread.
The fact that he [God] separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
I think that it a load of rubbish. There is only one race, the human race. This was one of the conclusions of the human genome project. I firmly believe God has no issue with interracial marriage. This is just a side note, I know its off topic and most of you probably dont care.
Matt

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by ohnhai, posted 06-07-2006 8:49 AM watzimagiga has replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 283 of 304 (318647)
06-07-2006 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by watzimagiga
06-07-2006 7:58 AM


Re: Marriage for all?
Hi ya watzmagiga.
watzmagiga writes:
But has it been mentioned that marriage is a Christian tradition.
Sure has.
But think on this. If marriage is a 'Christian tradition' (and I assume by that you mean ”only a Christian tradition’) then why does virtually every other religion, society and culture have marriage tradition? More over, if marriage WAS a Christian thing in and of itself, that does leave you with the little problem of explaining why the Romans, Greeks, Jews and Egyptians (to name but a few) practice marriage centuries before the birth of Christ ? Simple. Marriage has been practiced by humans for millennia. Way before Jesus was even a twinkle in his daddy’s eye.
There have been many definitions of marriage through centuries and ”heterosexual monogamy’ has been but one (and not an exclusively Christian one at that). It is ridiculous for Christianity to lay claim to the sole rights to heterosexual monogamy, let alone “marriage”.
It could even be argued that heterosexual monogamy was actually invented in the animal kingdom first, many species follow observable monogamous relationships.
It plainly absurd that one group of humans would, could or should force their interpretation of the universal concept of a monogamous relationship on any other group.
In short if same sex couples want to define their monogamous relationships as marriage then there is no reason for them not to, save for the exclusionist discrimination of a group who mistakenly believes it alone has the right to define what marriage is.
Oh and PS.. Homosexuals no more 'Choose to be gay' than you chose to be straight, male or a Kiwi.
PPS: Whoot ! Post 500 this is

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by watzimagiga, posted 06-07-2006 7:58 AM watzimagiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by watzimagiga, posted 06-07-2006 9:42 AM ohnhai has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6573 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 284 of 304 (318650)
06-07-2006 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by ThingsChange
06-07-2006 7:56 AM


Re: Gay marriage represents "anything goes"
I get Faith's logic, and I agree with her assessment on decline of society.
History has shown that people "pull together" and succeed better as a nation when the population has a key set of values for the population. For example, ethnic and religious conflict (i.e. set of values of a population) frequently boil over into violence and degradation.
Gay marriage is clearly unpopular with the population, and I believe most people recognize that the practice and openness of homosexuality promotes the destruction of a core set of values and traditions that represents the masses' unity and goals for their kids to look up to.
It is not just this issue that is tearing this country apart. It is just another cog in a destructive wheel churning against values of the majority.
What kind of paranoid BS is this?
What do you think society is? Where did you get this nutball idea that any society, let alone OUR society, has ever been anything but a seething cauldron of discord and conflicting agendas?
Can you name a date when things were better than today?
When was the day there was no war, or that america was as perfect as apple pie, cuz I certainly can't point to one. Society has allways been crumbling in the eyes of those from previous generations essentially because society is not a stable entety. It's an ever changing thing and that's good, that's how a society survives.
Seriously dude, give some thouught to what you are saying.
Edited by Yaro, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by ThingsChange, posted 06-07-2006 7:56 AM ThingsChange has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by iano, posted 06-07-2006 9:20 AM Yaro has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 304 (318658)
06-07-2006 9:00 AM


Things Change and watzimagiga
Thank you, Things Change, and watzimagiga. Unfortunately, winning a debate around here is a matter of popularity, which side has the most and the loudest voices declaring the other side wrong whether they have a shred of reason on their side or not.
Although I agree with your conclusions, watzi, I have to say that my argument has been that marriage is NOT specifically a Christian tradition, in fact it is universal among all peoples throughout all time, and always it unites male and female. That's the point of it as you affirm. Thanks for joining in.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by ohnhai, posted 06-07-2006 9:35 AM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024