• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

Upchurch said:
As a reminder:














Neither the Bible nor Jesus is my primary authority for anything (except, maybe, biblical trivia). You were the one who linked morality with legality and who linked morality with the Bible. Unless you're Jewish (are you?), you're likely a Christian, which means you purport to follow the teachings of Jesus.

I am an atheist. I do not even pretend to follow the teachings of Jesus, but I know what they are, which is more than can be said of you. I'm merely pointing this out, as well as the fact that your first quote up there is completely out of touch with the US legal system.
Click to expand...


No. It is you who claimed the higher moral ground by citing Jesus.
 
Uprchurch wrote:

"How so? Did you not say you felt revulsion from homosexuality? Is that not hate? Have you resisted any rational argument to the contrary. Is that not bigotry?"

Comment: Christianity, which you often cite, expresses revulsion for sin, but not the sinner.
 
Robert Prey said:
Uprchurch wrote:

"How so? Did you not say you felt revulsion from homosexuality? Is that not hate? Have you resisted any rational argument to the contrary. Is that not bigotry?"

Comment: Christianity, which you often cite, expresses revulsion for sin, but not the sinner.
Click to expand...
Still makes no sense. If you are repulsed at the color of a persons skin but not the person then you are a bigot. Skin color doesn't harm you. You are entitled to think skin color is bad but there is no rationale for that. So, absent rational justification for the revulsion you are a bigot.
 
Robert Prey said:
Homosexuality is referred to in the Bible, but only as an immoral act. But homosexual "marriage"? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Eating shellfish is referred to as an abomination. Genocide is permitted. Infanticide is permitted. It's time to stop looking to the Bible for morality.
 
DarbyII said:
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.
Click to expand...
So you want to lift the ban of gay people marrying each other?
 
Robert Prey said:
No. It is you who claimed the higher moral ground by citing Jesus.
Click to expand...
You're not paying attention. If anything, I would claim the higher moral ground because I don't need to cite Jesus.

What I'm saying is that you are basing your moral position on your religion, but you are not following the teachings of magic holy man.


Robert Prey said:
Uprchurch wrote:

"How so? Did you not say you felt revulsion from homosexuality? Is that not hate? Have you resisted any rational argument to the contrary. Is that not bigotry?"

Comment: Christianity, which you often cite, expresses revulsion for sin, but not the sinner.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said:
Robert Prey said:
Hate????. Why, some of my best friends are..... Well, actually not. I try to keep my distance from them. Not hatred; just revulsion.
Click to expand...

How are you loving the sinner here?
 
BenBurch said:
True but when they quote gospel and then ding others for doing so as though they brought it up, what's the point.
Click to expand...
We each have to decide when it's appropriate to respond. I'm fine with engaging Robert. The view to post ratio is high and the opposition is weak sauce.
 
Robert Prey said:
"...your bigotry" is another ad hominem attack. Marriage has always been understood and a man and woman thing.
Click to expand...

So the Romans outlawed something that wasn't happening?

Robert Prey said:
Then comes the "do your own thing" Deep Thinkers who say, Hey, why not man and man, woman and woman?
Click to expand...

What if this is true? So what. Just because something was always done before doesn't mean it was right.


Robert Prey said:
And suddenly claim all traditional marriage believers are "Bigots."
Click to expand...

They are bigots so long as they try to thrust their belief onto others.

Only one side of this debate is trying to force the other side into doing something they don't like.

Robert Prey said:
We are not bigots. that is an epithet that you have invented and applied to those who stand for traditional moral values.
Click to expand...

By "traditional" you mean "completely made up and unsupportable with facts and evidence."

Robert Prey said:
Homosexuality is referred to in the Bible, but only as an immoral act. But homosexual "marriage"? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

What if the Bible also said that taking on the name of something that is hunted was immoral?
 
Peephole said:
So you want to lift the ban of gay people marrying each other?
Click to expand...

Breach of rule 12 removed. Do not alter members' names in order to insult them.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles


It's not a matter of what I want or whether or not "gay marriage" is something that offends me. I AM NOT important in the issue.

The issue is that we have a Constitution. This Constitution is the law of the land. Citizens, all Citizens, are protected by that Constitution. The institution of marriage long pre-dates the Constitution and is (at least I hope) accepted by everyone here as a unalienable right. It is not the business of government to pick and choose who you or I get to spent our lives with. (And God knows that our government has been in the busniess for far too long picking and choosing winners and losers in situations where it has absolutely no authority to do so.)

If it is an unalienable right, and New York states that it is, then it is not the business of the government, State of Federal, to license. Denial or abridgement of unalienable rights is forbidden to both the Federal and State governments.

As such there is no reason to parse the application of the law of the land to minority groups, make special laws targeting one group specifically or make long moral or religious dissertations to justify either the pro or con positions in order to pass law one way or the other. It's none of government's business how we decide to peacefully assemble.

Here's all that I ask: Don't encroach on my rights, don't breach the peace and don't force me to pay for your mistakes as you enjoy the freedom to choose if it goes awray. But I ask that much of any person, gay, straight or otherwise.

A gay couple, if they honestly abide by my above request, in no way negatively affects my life or encroaches on my rights simply because they are a gay couple. I'm perfectly OK with that.

In other words, just as "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!" says, we don't really need the government in the business of deciding whom we marry by the issuance of licenses and all of the attendant (and oft times draconian) laws surrounding the institution. Get government out of the business. We can handle the details to make it work. We actually aren't the idiot children that the nanny state thinks that we are. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DarbyII said:
In other words, just as "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!" says, we don't really need the government in the business of deciding whom we marry by the issuance of licenses and all of the attendant (and oft times draconian) laws surrounding the institution. Get government out of the business. We can handle the details to make it work. We actually aren't the idiot children that the nanny state thinks that we are.
Click to expand...
Flourishing societies are negatively correlated to nations that do not provide social services, regulations and programs to encourage behavior that is in the interest of society. If people want marriage and the state believes that it is good for society then I'm fine with it. If the state should get out of the marriage business that's fine. But there is sociological data that there are benefits to marriage.
 
Upchurch said:
You're not paying attention. If anything, I would claim the higher moral ground because I don't need to cite Jesus.

What I'm saying is that you are basing your moral position on your religion, but you are not following the teachings of magic holy man.




That's not what you said:


How are you loving the sinner here?
Click to expand...

By not doing what John Wayne would do if propositioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom