Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 18, 2024, 11:22 am
Thread Rating:
|
MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE
|
 RE: MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE
June 27, 2015 at 8:02 pm
(This post was last modified: June 27, 2015 at 8:03 pm by SteelCurtain.)
You don't get to vote on rights is exactly the point. The South would not have voted to integrate. The assholes like Governor Faubus in Arkansas (they are a rare breed in that state) cried state's rights when the SCOTUS ruled that 'separate but equal' was a bullshit policy, half of which wasn't being practiced. So he exercised his state's rights by pulling the state militia to keep the 9 students out of Central High in Little Rock and incited riots and blamed them on the blacks in the state. But then Ike bitchslapped him with the 101st. My favorite example of exercising executive power.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---  (June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm of two minds on the supreme court ruling. For one, I've long thought that it's wrong to provide certain civil rights to some and not to others. So in that regard I'm okay with the ruling. On the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral. I know we're a pluralistic society and we should provide rights to all citizens regardless of religion, but in order to do it we changed the definition of what we believe marriage is, and we could do the same thing by just allowing exactly the same civil rights for all without doing that. I've brought up this example before, and I believe it's equally acceptable. A man in college can be barred from joining a sorority, but he may join a fraternity and have equal status. I see no reason to redefine what a sorority is because they discriminate against men. Is there any difference between that situation and the government just granting equal benefits to any qualifying civil union without redefining an institution as it existed at the time the constitution was written? The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I guess christians will now have to come up with a new word to call what they now call marriage. Your humanity is struggling with your institutionalised bigotry. It's a common side effect of addiction to Christcrack. ![[Image: rySLj1k.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FrySLj1k.png) If you have any serious concerns, are being harassed, or just need someone to talk to, feel free to contact me via PM  (June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm of two minds on the supreme court ruling. For one, I've long thought that it's wrong to provide certain civil rights to some and not to others. So in that regard I'm okay with the ruling. On the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral. I know we're a pluralistic society and we should provide rights to all citizens regardless of religion, but in order to do it we changed the definition of what we believe marriage is, and we could do the same thing by just allowing exactly the same civil rights for all without doing that. I've brought up this example before, and I believe it's equally acceptable. A man in college can be barred from joining a sorority, but he may join a fraternity and have equal status. I see no reason to redefine what a sorority is because they discriminate against men. Is there any difference between that situation and the government just granting equal benefits to any qualifying civil union without redefining an institution as it existed at the time the constitution was written? The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I guess christians will now have to come up with a new word to call what they now call marriage. We shall call it what we always have, Holy Matrimony. The wordly may change their definitions on whim, why not call an apple a pear now, but true marriage will remain above such abasement.  (June 27, 2015 at 8:05 pm)Iroscato Wrote:(June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm of two minds on the supreme court ruling. For one, I've long thought that it's wrong to provide certain civil rights to some and not to others. So in that regard I'm okay with the ruling. On the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral. I know we're a pluralistic society and we should provide rights to all citizens regardless of religion, but in order to do it we changed the definition of what we believe marriage is, and we could do the same thing by just allowing exactly the same civil rights for all without doing that. I've brought up this example before, and I believe it's equally acceptable. A man in college can be barred from joining a sorority, but he may join a fraternity and have equal status. I see no reason to redefine what a sorority is because they discriminate against men. Is there any difference between that situation and the government just granting equal benefits to any qualifying civil union without redefining an institution as it existed at the time the constitution was written? The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I guess christians will now have to come up with a new word to call what they now call marriage. I think rather that it's you who have no concern for the institutions that have a lot of meaning for many. If some guy wants to join a sorority, do you think we should grant him that right and change the definition of a sorority?  Quote: The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. Could you show me where they ever considered the issue at all?  (June 27, 2015 at 8:16 pm)FriendlyNeighborhoodAtheist Wrote:(June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote: The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I would think that was a situation that they were already familiar with. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 24 Guest(s)
