Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:47am PT
|
No, I don't get it. They are, by definition and <skin color>, different. They are not the same. They may have equal rights under the law, but they are different. Different doesn't mean bad or whatever, it's a different type of <skin color>.
Get it, now?
No, I don't suppose you do. Bigots really have no concept of their own bigotry.
|
|
Gene
Social climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:56am PT
|
They'll be civil unions, right? What's the matter?
In California, civil unions are called domestic partnerships. The law establishing domestic partnerships requires opposite-sex couples have at least one person at least 62 years of age. Domestic partners are required to file separate Federal tax returns.
Close, but no cigar.
g
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:57am PT
|
No. There is mention in the Constitution of race, but none of sexual preference.
I'm fine with a separate class to define sexuality, but has to be different.
It IS different isn't it? Than traditional marriage? Or do we want to throw that under the buss now too?????
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:01am PT
|
Have you ever read the 14th amendment, bluering? It does not delineate or differentiate in any way between race, sexuality, or the kind of car you drive.
Equal = Equal
It really is that simple.
If it's any consolation, though, there were (and still are) puh-lenty of racists around who mightily opposed the concept of equal rights for all races. You do have company.
|
|
Gene
Social climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:04am PT
|
Bluey,
If you have read the decision overturning Prop 8, you should not go down the traditional marriage road. Coverture? Miscegenation?
Careful.
g
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:07am PT
|
Why not just change the definition of the word "marriage"? Take out the gender, so that it says a "union between a person and another person"?
OR....if done in Church, it's a marriage, on the Court steps, it's a Civil Union...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:10am PT
|
I'm curious where bluering would put those with genetic abnormalities in his 'system'. For example, those who appear to be women, but have XXY chromosomes, with the Y chromosome unexpressed. And what about men or women who are infertile, for whatever reason? Should they be denied the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex (or not), just because they can't conceive children? (They may sometimes not know of the inability beforehand, too.) Seems rather draconian.
And we haven't even talked about rap-marriage, yet.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:11am PT
|
Which church? What if a church is started that defines marriage as a union between people? Will that be allowed?
Tangent alert......
EDIT:
I'm curious where bluering would put those with genetic abnormalities in his 'system'
Leave it to a crazy Canadian......
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:14am PT
|
<homosexual-accepting church>
Oxymoron....
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:19am PT
|
OR....if done in Church, it's a marriage, on the Court steps, it's a Civil Union..
Or... if done on the Court steps, it's a Civil Union, if done in a church, it's a Religious Union.
That way, your church gets to define its religious union anyway it wants. No fags. No Asians. No whatever. Just one male believer and one female believer. The next guy's church can bless Religious Unions involving right-handed people, but not left-handed people. Whatever. And those unions can have whatever weight you want within your church.
But when it comes to legal rights and duties, you know, things like taxation, wills, power of attorney, hospital visitation, all that stuff, then only the civil union is relevant.
Would that work for you?
|
|
Gene
Social climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:19am PT
|
OR....if done in Church, it's a marriage, on the Court steps, it's a Civil Union...
Why should religious belief be a determinant factor in how the state recognizes one's relationship with another person?
g
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:21am PT
|
Text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Note, bluering, that there is no mention of anything resembling race, sexuality, religion, political leanings...
This section of the US Constitution says that all US citizens are to be treated equally under US laws.
All of them.
Every single one of them.
Even the ones you don't agree with, don't like, or have latent fears of.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:24am PT
|
The point is that, when you say "Church", it's your church you're referring to, and that there are existing churches that are willing to redefine their definition of the word "marriage" to include homosexual unions.
Maybe it is YOU is trying to bend the Church to conform to your 'standards' of sexuality.
And I have no problem with you, I dig the discussion. Hope to see you this year at the Facelift!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:27am PT
|
Even the ones you don't agree with, don't like, or have latent fears of.
That's not a fair statement, as#@&%e!
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:28am PT
|
What you brazenly and fantastically fail to understand &/or choose to ignore, is that the issue of Equal Rights has nothing to do with religion or Christianity.
Equal = Equal
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:29am PT
|
Read the Constitution, bluering.
|
|
Gene
Social climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:30am PT
|
Apogee,
You make a good point that I would like to expand on. Overturning Prop 8 was a legal ruling, not a moral ruling. Arguing against it on moral grounds is irrelevant to the law. If a person has moral problems with same sex marriage, they shouldn't marry a gay or lesbian. Not too hard to figure, huh?
g
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:32am PT
|
"Overturning Prop 8 was a legal ruling, not a moral ruling."
Yes. YES.
YESSSSS!!!!!!!!!1111169999
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:39am PT
|
You know, some political issues are hard to understand as they relate to the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. But in the case of the 14th amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, it seems pretty clear-cut to me. Hell, if Ted Olson is confident enough to lay his reputation and career on the line for this one, that's saying something.
However, if you don't read the Constitution, and only listen to the interpretations of those within your chosen echo chamber, you are sure to have a different view of the issue, no matter how disconnected from reality it might be.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:39am PT
|
Here's part of the issue: You say "the Church". Bro, there's more than one church. Your church may not support gay marriage, and so be it. But there are churches that do
Well, here is the disparity, right? What book are they reading? Are we Christians the new Taliban?
Huh?
Why did man have penis and the gals, a vagina? What does that have to do with marriage?
Ask yourself that. And then think....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!