quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!
- Thread starter truethat
- Start date
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
mea culpa.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
That too.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
As pointed out, those clearly aren't the words of Jesus, they were imagined by someone who never even met him. What Jesus is supposed to have said about tolerance and loving is easy to find... about as easy as that whole thing about not bearing false witness.
But then that stuff doesn't apply to you at all, does it?
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
M-hm?
Then that would be polygamy and an entirely different discussion altogether.
Children basically grow up confused. The whole wide world is incredibly strange and at times nonsensical to them. You must have been a child yourself and remember this
. Edit: what if a child grows up in a family with siblings and visits another family where there is only one child? Will that kid become insufferably confused, too?
Yes, there are, and depending on your values you will draw them at a different point than other people in society. That's life, especially in a democratic country.
Last edited:
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
Matt 5:27-28
27 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
The idea of homosexual lust is not even mentioned, it being such a ridiculous idea, but surely Adultery prohibition covers that as well.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
You're just going to hide behind a wall of ignorance, huh? If we point out something you can't handle, pretend it didn't happen?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
So then should there be a constitutional amendment against divorce?
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
That may be extrapolating a bit much. Lust in thought is sin, directly, from the verse. He's then making an argument that "because this other application of the exact same concept was not named specifically, that other application of the concept is absurd. But, if it actually was addressed by the concept, the same rules apply."
In short, logical fallacy followed by hypothetical concession that undermines pretty much any disputed point on the subject of homosexuality that he might have been trying to make at any point. I could go on, but frankly, I don't feel like getting too far into this. I've got better things to do than worry about what anonymous people who have no good arguments say.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
Is he arguing that now...(10PMish)?
No, he's over in the Conspiracy forum arguing that Kennedy was shot from the grassy knoll.
TheAnachronism
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 439
On this day, the 13th of February, 470 years ago, Catherine Howard was executed for adultery. Ah, the good ol' days.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Well, some of us anyway .....
As a conservative I'll state the case as I see it - the States (including the Federal Government) need to get out of the business of licensing marriage altogether. Marriage should be declared a contractual agreement between consenting adults, albeit an admittedly very special sort of contractual agreement.
That solves the problem without involving politics, political correctness or trashing both the Federal and States’ Constitutions.
Maine, Vermont and New York have also recently enacted sex-neutral language in their marriage laws. New York's law in Article I, Sec 2 states, "Legislative intent: Marriage is a fundamental human right." Therein lays the problem. I've read the new statutes for all three states. Vermont forbids first cousins from marrying, Maine allows first cousins to marry, New York's law is mute on the subject (though I assume it is likely covered elsewhere).
The California case argued the situation as involving rights under the 14th Amendment. Why? It is after all a rather weak argument because it doesn’t refer to any specific right of a US Citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. The answer is because the correct argument is the 9th Amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”), as indirectly recognized by the New York law. Admitting that marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right under the 9th Amendment calls into question the States’ ban on marriage between any consenting adults including close relatives such as siblings and first cousins, or even polygamous marriages. And look closely at the language of the 9th Amendment - it's not a reference to Federal Govt rights or State's rights. It refers to the third specific class mentioned in the Constitution - the people.
Marriage either is or it isn’t a fundamental right. If it is the State can’t fall back on “social norms” to ban sibling/polygamous marriage whether it is opposite or same sex marriage (mixed couples or triads?). If the State can apply “social norms” to such relationships then it can apply the same sort of criteria to all marriage relationships. The "right" in the latter case ends up not being quite so fundamental - it is conferred, instead, by the State...a privilege subject to changing laws.
Instead of making weak politically motivated, desired outcome based Constitutional arguments the best and most secure situation to protect marriage rights is to get the government the hell out of the business and let consenting adults decide on their own without Big Brother’s nose in their private affairs.
That solves the problem without involving politics, political correctness or trashing both the Federal and States’ Constitutions.
Maine, Vermont and New York have also recently enacted sex-neutral language in their marriage laws. New York's law in Article I, Sec 2 states, "Legislative intent: Marriage is a fundamental human right." Therein lays the problem. I've read the new statutes for all three states. Vermont forbids first cousins from marrying, Maine allows first cousins to marry, New York's law is mute on the subject (though I assume it is likely covered elsewhere).
The California case argued the situation as involving rights under the 14th Amendment. Why? It is after all a rather weak argument because it doesn’t refer to any specific right of a US Citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. The answer is because the correct argument is the 9th Amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”), as indirectly recognized by the New York law. Admitting that marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right under the 9th Amendment calls into question the States’ ban on marriage between any consenting adults including close relatives such as siblings and first cousins, or even polygamous marriages. And look closely at the language of the 9th Amendment - it's not a reference to Federal Govt rights or State's rights. It refers to the third specific class mentioned in the Constitution - the people.
Marriage either is or it isn’t a fundamental right. If it is the State can’t fall back on “social norms” to ban sibling/polygamous marriage whether it is opposite or same sex marriage (mixed couples or triads?). If the State can apply “social norms” to such relationships then it can apply the same sort of criteria to all marriage relationships. The "right" in the latter case ends up not being quite so fundamental - it is conferred, instead, by the State...a privilege subject to changing laws.
Instead of making weak politically motivated, desired outcome based Constitutional arguments the best and most secure situation to protect marriage rights is to get the government the hell out of the business and let consenting adults decide on their own without Big Brother’s nose in their private affairs.
Last edited:
Multivac
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,121
Exactly. My better half and I have ben married for almost 20 years. It is, and always has been, a marriage of equal partners.
I'm one of them.
Multivac
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,121
Why is it such a ridiculous idea? Around 10% of the world polulation lusts after people of the same sex, so your opinion is simply irrelevant.
SezMe
post-pre-born
A case that has no basis in reality. Hundreds (thousands?) of laws deal with marriage. Hundreds (thousands?) of pages of tax law deal with marriage. It just ain't going away.
Your long screed is a waste of keystrokes. What do you suggest for the here and now in the USA?
ETA: Welcome to the forum - especially the politics section.
Last edited:
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
So we have to get rid of all the immigration, tax, inheritance, protection from testimony, legal standing in wrongful death and so forth that accompany marriage?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Moreover, around 50% of the world population "looks at a man with lust for him". I suppose adultery is only a sin for straight men and lesbians? Apparently, the concept of gay men and straight women is "ridiculous".
Last edited:
12AX7
Banned
