Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay marraige and the end of the world
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 195 (277469)
01-09-2006 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
01-09-2006 7:06 AM


I'm not so sure that religion is at the heart of the fundamentalists's abhorrence of either nature or homosexuality; rather, I think that religion is but an excuse for maintaining their prejudices.
Who ever said that fundies are logically consistent anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 01-09-2006 7:06 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 195 (277715)
01-10-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by riVeRraT
01-10-2006 7:22 AM


Re: Don't play gang up on riverrat now.
riVeRraT writes:
if sterile people cannot reproduce, isn't there some kind of natural selection going on there, that we are interfering with?
This is mistake that Social Darwinists make. The ToE doesn't make moral judgement calls; evolution happens, but that doesn't mean it's "wrong" to interfere with it. Or that it's good to, for that matter.
if 2 woman get divorced, and they had adopted a child together, who is the father?
Does it make a difference? I don't know much about divorce law.
What makes your morals more correct than anyone elses?
Exactly. Who's right? Could be anyone. Which is why I strongly believe that laws shouldn't be built around moral systems, but should instead allow citizens the freedom to follow their own moral codes. In marriage law, that means allowing consenting partners to marry regardless of race, religious convictions, sexual orientation, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 01-10-2006 7:22 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 195 (278003)
01-11-2006 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by riVeRraT
01-11-2006 6:26 AM


Re: Don't play gang up on riverrat now.
riVeRrat writes:
I like nascar racing, and growing up in NYC most people didn't understand it. They did not like it, and most Northerners will despise anything that the rest of the country is into.
That's a pretty silly comparison. How many people have been murdered for enjoying NASCAR, or any sport?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by riVeRraT, posted 01-11-2006 6:26 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by riVeRraT, posted 01-11-2006 7:06 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 195 (278623)
01-13-2006 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by riVeRraT
01-13-2006 8:20 AM


Re: Don't play gang up on riverrat now.
riVeRraT writes:
I am saying that it represents it though. It's a matter of disrespect of the very process that brought yourself into existance.
If you were conceived during a night of drunken passion, would it be disrespectful to abstain from alcohol? =P

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by riVeRraT, posted 01-13-2006 8:20 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by riVeRraT, posted 01-14-2006 12:18 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 195 (279097)
01-15-2006 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by riVeRraT
01-15-2006 1:49 AM


Re: Don't play gang up on riverrat now.
riVeRraT writes:
They are not proclamations, as much as it is history, and fact.
The subjugation of coloured peoples was history. Luckily, the majority of Americans eventually stopped standing in the way of change.
Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by riVeRraT, posted 01-15-2006 1:49 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by riVeRraT, posted 01-15-2006 1:38 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 195 (279372)
01-16-2006 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Silent H
01-16-2006 5:19 AM


Re: History
holmes writes:
If a conservative said to you, they can't get on board with gay marriage right now because they are busy with other issues (perhaps religious speech rights issues), would that make sense to you?
Those are very different matters. If a conservative said that s/he's working on religious speech issues at the moment, and hate speech will have to wait, then that makes some sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2006 5:19 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2006 8:34 AM Funkaloyd has replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 195 (279386)
01-16-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Silent H
01-16-2006 8:34 AM


Priorities
It's a strategic thing. Some believe that gay marriage trumps other freedoms of a similar nature which are arguably less popular (even to the point of being detrimental to the movement) and less pressing at the moment.
So, one might say "today we fight for the preacher's right to speak freely; the fascist's right to speak freely can wait until tomorrow"; or "today we fight for gay marriage, tomorrow for polygamy".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2006 8:34 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 01-16-2006 10:59 AM Funkaloyd 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