Marriage Debate

Huntster said:
Classic tirade from an anti-religious zealot.

The reference was made as an illustration of the differences between religious and state marriage/divorce.

Return to zero?

It appears that, after all these pages, we all haven't gotten past zero.
Click to expand...
You cannot argue about why a law needs to be a certain way from a religious tennet. You need a sound, logical reason.

Repeat: What is your sound, logical reason that same sex marriage should be prohibited by law?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
....My personal preferences and morality do not override anyone else's. Hunter, Meadmaker, neither do yours. If you chose to continue to support laws which make it impossible for same sex people to marry, it is your responsiblty to state a sound, logical reason why the law should read that way....
Click to expand...

Actually, no it's not. Even if it was, we clearly wouldn't change minds here.

Our responsibility is to vote, and that vote can be quite private. No statement is needed or required.

If it is merely your opinion that it is bad, then don't do it. Teach your children not to do it, if you wish, but leave the rest of us alone.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I won't do it, I'll teach my children not to do it, and I'll vote against it (if the courts will give me a chance).
 
ImaginalDisc said:
....Repeat: What is your sound, logical reason that same sex marriage should be prohibited by law?
Click to expand...

No merry-go-round rides, young man.

You may "repeat" all you wish. I won't. I've already stated my opinion on this thread multiple times. Look it up or drop it.
 
Huntster said:
No merry-go-round rides, young man.

You may "repeat" all you wish. I won't. I've already stated my opinion on this thread multiple times. Look it up or drop it.
Click to expand...
So, no sound reason, then? Just an opinion that is pretty much in violation of the Bill of Rights?
 
Huntster said:
No merry-go-round rides, young man.

You may "repeat" all you wish. I won't. I've already stated my opinion on this thread multiple times. Look it up or drop it.
Click to expand...
If you don't want a merry-go-round, why do you keep running us in circles? What is the reason, the sound, logical reason, you think same sex marriage ought to be prohibted by law?
 
Huntster said:
Classic tirade from an anti-religious zealot.
Click to expand...
What on Earth are you talking about? What makes you think that what ID said was anti-religious? There are quite a few religions and religious leaders who are not only for SSM but also the seperation of church and state.
 
Upchurch said:
What on Earth are you talking about? What makes you think that what ID said was anti-religious? There are quite a few religions and religious leaders who are not only for SSM but also the seperation of church and state.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm quite opposed to religion in general. That is, I want no part of it, and I am of the opinion it is deterimental, but unlike Huntser's dislike of homosexuality, my dislike of religion doesn't extend to advocating it be prohibted by law.
 
What parallels, if any, can be drawn between the current attempts to limit the definition of marriage, and this from 1912?
 
Upchurch said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
No merry-go-round rides, young man.

You may "repeat" all you wish. I won't. I've already stated my opinion on this thread multiple times. Look it up or drop it.
Click to expand...
So, no sound reason, then? Just an opinion that is pretty much in violation of the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

Emboldened for those with reading troubles.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Actually, I'm quite opposed to religion in general. That is, I want no part of it, and I am of the opinion it is deterimental, but unlike Huntser's dislike of homosexuality, my dislike of religion doesn't extend to advocating it be prohibted by law.
Click to expand...
I had guessed as much, but what you said was not anti-religious, imho.
 
Upchurch said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
Classic tirade from an anti-religious zealot.
Click to expand...
What on Earth are you talking about? What makes you think that what ID said was anti-religious?.....
Click to expand...

ID and I go back a ways. I'm fully aware of his position regarding God and religion.

He quoted my mere mention of the religious side of marriage/divorce, then disregarded the comparison to the state version, and chastised me for the mere mention.

And I believe you know that.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Actually, I'm quite opposed to religion in general. That is, I want no part of it, and I am of the opinion it is deterimental, but unlike Huntser's dislike of homosexuality, my dislike of religion doesn't extend to advocating it be prohibted by law.
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly stated and implied that I do not support outlawing homosexual activity. I believe you know that.
 
Upchurch said:
Boy, you do have reading problems, don't you? I didn't ask why you thought ID was anti-religious. I asked why you thought what he said was anti-religious.
Click to expand...

Repeat:

He quoted my mere mention of the religious side of marriage/divorce, then disregarded the comparison to the state version, and chastised me for the mere mention.
Click to expand...

Is this going to turn into the merry-go-round, anyway?
 
Upchurch said:
Originally Posted by Terry :
What parallels, if any, can be drawn between the current attempts to limit the definition of marriage, and this from 1912?
Click to expand...
Not many. Discriminating based on race is morally wrong and just plain silly. Homosexuality is clearly different.

[/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Agreed.

[/no-sarcasm-at-all]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom