Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 640 of 1309 (740619)
11-06-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 638 by Faith
11-06-2014 11:12 AM


Re: Delusions of Persecution and all that
As I already said, the signatures were validated by the City Secretary, then illegally and fraudulently disqualified by the City Attorney.
What was illegal or fraudelent about the disqualifications?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by Faith, posted 11-06-2014 11:12 AM Faith has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 643 of 1309 (740632)
11-06-2014 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 641 by Faith
11-06-2014 11:50 AM


Looks to me like they are targeted in such a way as to be caught off guard because the whole point is to take legal action against them.
The anti-gay group is the one who filed the lawsuit in the Houston case. They are the ones who took legal action.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 641 by Faith, posted 11-06-2014 11:50 AM Faith has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 712 of 1309 (740842)
11-07-2014 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 691 by Faith
11-07-2014 2:38 PM


Well, there you have it, the perfect reversal of good for evil and evil for good that is THE sign of the last days.
Like we haven't heard that for the last 2,000 years. How many times have people proclaimed that we are in the end days?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 691 by Faith, posted 11-07-2014 2:38 PM Faith has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 714 of 1309 (740844)
11-07-2014 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 706 by Faith
11-07-2014 4:45 PM


No. If crime is punished by a society it isn't going to pull down God's wrath because the society is doing the right thing. It's when society does the wrong thing that it is punished.
Let's see . . . humans are living longer and healthier lives than they ever have before. Rates of childhood mortality have plummeted. We have never been under less threat from infectious diseases than now.
If this is punishment, I say we do even more wrong things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by Faith, posted 11-07-2014 4:45 PM Faith has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 720 of 1309 (740850)
11-07-2014 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 716 by Faith
11-07-2014 5:13 PM


Where did I say anything to imply that you should expect to be punished? I'm talking about society as a whole coming increasingly under God's judgment for an accumulation of sins BY society over a long period of time.
And yet society keeps getting better. We are curing more diseases, living longer, living better . . . if that is increasing judgment, keep it coming.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 716 by Faith, posted 11-07-2014 5:13 PM Faith has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1127 of 1309 (742178)
11-17-2014 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1115 by Faith
11-17-2014 3:57 PM


Re: Sixth District Circuit Court Ruling for Gay Marriage Bans
Most black people know better, they know there is no legitimate comparison between the black Civil Rights movement and this attempt to legitimize a nonracial nonethnic group
Baloney. It is discrimination based on sex, period. You are saying that you can marry a woman, as long as you aren't a woman. That is sex discrimination, and last I checked you have no say as to what sex you are born as.
Discrimination based on race and sex are directly comparable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1115 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 3:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1128 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 5:54 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1130 of 1309 (742181)
11-17-2014 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1128 by Faith
11-17-2014 5:54 PM


Re: Sixth District Circuit Court Ruling for Gay Marriage Bans
Well, that's a clever way to twist it. Full of logical holes but probably politically correct enough to pass muster
What logical holes? You are claiming that who you can marry should be based on sex. That is sexual discrimination, straight away.
But again, most blacks would not agree with it.
Who cares if they agree or disagree. What matters is the truth, or at least it matters to some of us . . . perhaps not to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1128 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 5:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1132 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 6:09 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1131 of 1309 (742182)
11-17-2014 6:01 PM


Once again, here is the decision reached back in May dealing with gay marriage in my home state:
quote:
Idaho s Marriage Laws withhold from them a profound and personal choice, one that most can take for granted. By doing so, Idaho s Marriage Laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love.
The Defendants (state of Idaho) offered no evidence that same-sex marriage would adversely affect opposite-sex marriages or the well-being of children. Without proof, the Defendants justifications echo the unsubstantiated fears that could not prop up the anti-miscegenation laws and rigid gender roles of days long past. Then as now, it is the duty of the courts to apply the law to the facts in evidence. Here, the facts are clear and the law teaches that marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens, which neither tradition nor the majority can deny.
http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/2014/07/03/12174729/
Again, it is about discrimination against same SEX marraiges. It is about discriminating against couples because of their sex. On top of that, they can demonstrate harm while no one who opposes gay marriage can present any real harm that will come to them because two women can get married. Even federal judges are comparing the ban on gay marriages to the ban on mixed race marriages.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1133 of 1309 (742187)
11-17-2014 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1132 by Faith
11-17-2014 6:09 PM


Re: Sixth District Circuit Court Ruling for Gay Marriage Bans
I'm discriminating against Women because some women, a very tiny minority of women, want to marry other women?
Yep.
I guess I just don't have the ability to put my head into the logical pretzel that makes such thinking seem to make sense.
What part of same SEX marriage is so hard for you to figure out?
But I guess I'm not discriminating against Women if I ignore the votes of a huge number of women against gay marriage?
Just like you are not discriminating against mixed race marriages if a majority of whites vote against it?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1132 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 6:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1134 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 6:38 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 1156 of 1309 (742230)
11-18-2014 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1134 by Faith
11-17-2014 6:38 PM


Re: Sixth District Circuit Court Ruling for Gay Marriage Bans
It's a phony misuse of the word.
No, it isn't. You want to restrict marriage based on sex.
The fact that there are in nature two quite distinct sexes rather determines the right combination of them.
No, it doesn't. Ever heard of this thing called "freedom"? What about letting people decide for themselves what the right combination is?
But emotion is everything these days, we make laws based on feelings rather than objective realities or even the near-universal practices of millennia. If the feeling contradicts the objective physical reality, we just go with the feeling. This is considered "progress."
Emotion is all you have. Your emotion is that same sex marriages are icky, so no one should be allowed to do it.
Marriage has to do with the objective physical fit of male and female.
Nope, that's what reproduction is. That is not marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1134 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 6:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1165 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 1:13 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 1169 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 1:32 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 1157 of 1309 (742232)
11-18-2014 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1148 by Faith
11-18-2014 2:16 AM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
Since one of the two is the natural parent in these cases, or the legally adoptive parent, that is also naturally covered by the laws you mention cover aunts and uncles etc;. Why are you -- or they -- making this sound like such a big problem, I really don't see it at all. Seems to me they could live as a couple, and make use of the legal benefits automatically conferred on the natural parent, etc.
How naive of you. If that natural parent dies, the family of the natural parent can bar that person's life partner from ever seeing that child again. If the couple breaks up, one of the partners has no recourse for visitation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1148 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 2:16 AM Faith has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 1158 of 1309 (742233)
11-18-2014 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1144 by Faith
11-17-2014 11:59 PM


Re: Oy. This has nothing to do with personal marriages. Yikes.
I used the bolt lock example just as a way of emphasizing that it's about uniting the two distinctly different sexes, for which a physical analogy is simply the most accessible, and it's being about two different sexes means it has no relevance whatever to two of the same sex because it's about bringing together the DIFFERENT sexes.
The despicable thing is that you deny that same sex couples can love each other as deeply as a heterosexual couple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1144 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 11:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1170 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 1:38 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 1180 of 1309 (742273)
11-18-2014 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1179 by Faith
11-18-2014 2:36 PM


Re: Congratulations to the Devil
So? What I said was true, the courts have overruled the vote of the people in state after state.
Just like segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.
When will it finally get through your psychological barriers that you can not vote to take away a person's constitutional rights?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1179 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 2:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1182 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 2:57 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1181 of 1309 (742274)
11-18-2014 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1170 by Faith
11-18-2014 1:38 PM


Re: Oy. This has nothing to do with personal marriages. Yikes.
Have said no such thing, have said absolutely nothing about love, keep saying that I'm not talking about feelings or personal experience at all, but defining marriage as an objective social institution that people have to be qualified for. Period.
That's not how marriage is defined. We don't define marriage as a partnership for procreation. We don't force heterosexual couples to prove their fecundity before their nuptuals. It isn't about reproduction. Obviously, people reproduce just fine outside of marriages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1170 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 1:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1184 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 3:00 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1189 of 1309 (742284)
11-18-2014 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1185 by Faith
11-18-2014 3:01 PM


Re: Congratulations to the Devil
Homosexuality is not a legitimate minority. We do not grant special rights to aberrant groups.
Getting married is not a special right. It's not as if homosexuals are asking that only they should be able to marry. They are asking for the SAME rights as heterosexual couples.
If you are saying that only heterosexual couples should have the right to marry, then you are the one asking for special rights.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1185 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 3:01 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