Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Texas has first Lesbian Marriage despite ban

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Woah, you guys are crazy.




    Fixed that for you.

    Your church is evil. Seriously.
    For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

    OUCH! That means a lot coming from you....

    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

    Comment


    • #32
      Starlight's homophilia directly contributes to child rape and pestilence, he has to either project or live with himself as he is and the former's always easier.
      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
        Your church is evil. Seriously.
        For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

        OUCH! That means a lot coming from you....

        I see you're from Texas. Edited by a Moderator
        Last edited by Catholicity; 02-22-2015, 01:06 PM.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          I see you're from Texas. Edited by a Moderator
          Why not ask yourself that. Between all the dead gays and dead fetuses left in your wake you seem to be far more knowledgeable about these things than we are.
          Last edited by Cow Poke; 02-22-2015, 03:03 PM.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post

            Your church is evil. Seriously.
            Weren't you the one who used a Saharan tribe that engaged in ritualistic pedophilia and a megalomaniac emperor who castrated and then "married" a boy as an argument for the legalization of same sex marriage?

            Do you feel so fundamentally deficient in your own person that you don't feel like 'real' men unless you're doing your best to make someone else's life miserable?
            I could ask you the same thing.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Knowing Thomas View Post
              Weren't you the one who used a Saharan tribe that engaged in ritualistic pedophilia and a megalomaniac emperor who castrated and then "married" a boy as an argument for the legalization of same sex marriage?
              I referenced those to point out that you guys were making factually false claims about history.

              I have always been clear that I consider same-sex marriage a fundamental right (which is something numerous US courts have said, and which it's highly highly likely the the US Supreme court will also agree on) and that the right of same-sex couples in the present to get married is not at all dependent on history.

              Nonetheless you guys managed to be factually wrong about history as well.


              But perhaps you could explain to me why US southern fundamentalist Christians who were historically wrong on ALL moral issues in the nation's history (slavery, Jim Crow, interracial marriage, desegregation etc.) and who now admit they were wrong in their better moments (although not in their worse moments), somehow think that despite having a history of always being wrong on everything that they are somehow in some kind of authoritative moral position where they are entitled to be taken seriously by other people on the subject of morality? Why don't modern-day Christians in that region learn from the historical mistakes they made (rather than trying to ban the teaching of those mistakes) and say "er, so everyone else thinks we're wrong about homosexuality and abortion... and knowing that we were in the wrong 100% of the time in the past when we held a moral position different to everyone else's, maybe we should rethink out position?" Why instead do they pervasively buy into the delusion that this time they're finally in the right for once and this time it's everybody else that's wrong?
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                I referenced those to point out that you guys were making factually false claims about history.

                I have always been clear that I consider same-sex marriage a fundamental right (which is something numerous US courts have said, and which it's highly highly likely the the US Supreme court will also agree on) and that the right of same-sex couples in the present to get married is not at all dependent on history.

                Nonetheless you guys managed to be factually wrong about history as well.


                But perhaps you could explain to me why US southern fundamentalist Christians who were historically wrong on ALL moral issues in the nation's history (slavery, Jim Crow, interracial marriage, desegregation etc.) and who now admit they were wrong in their better moments (although not in their worse moments), somehow think that despite having a history of always being wrong on everything that they are somehow in some kind of authoritative moral position where they are entitled to be taken seriously by other people on the subject of morality? Why don't modern-day Christians in that region learn from the historical mistakes they made (rather than trying to ban the teaching of those mistakes) and say "er, so everyone else thinks we're wrong about homosexuality and abortion... and knowing that we were in the wrong 100% of the time in the past when we held a moral position different to everyone else's, maybe we should rethink out position?" Why instead do they pervasively buy into the delusion that this time they're finally in the right for once and this time it's everybody else that's wrong?
                If you think people today should be judged based on things other people have done in the past due to a shared ancestry are you ok with:

                1) Judging today's blacks for their colossal crime rates?
                2) Judging past and present blacks for their role slavery (and I don't mean as slaves, I mean as slave traders and slave owners, even in the south)?
                3) Judging gays for massive STD rates and the human and financial resources drained by them?
                4) Judging Northerners for butchering 600 000 people to get cheap black labor for northern industrialists and to subjugate people who did not want to be ruled by them, all in the name of "freedom"?
                5) Judging liberals in general (a disproportionate number of them belonging to favored progressive minorities) for the millions of abortions they've aided, abetted and committed?

                Is this like that gay thing whag posted where people with latent homosexual disorder are more likely to be uncomfortable around gays, except people most prone to bigotry are the ones most likely to cry about it in others?
                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I'm beginning to think Starlight's just a troll. A very long-winded one.
                  I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    I referenced those
                    As thread owner, I'm going to ask you to stop posting here.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      Would you extend that position to include regulating inheritance?
                      I understand that there are some good legal reasons for which the government has an interest in knowing who is family with whom-- inheritance, power of attorney, custody issues, et cetera. However, I don't believe that the government should be regulating this issue. I shouldn't need to ask the state for permission to marry. I should simply be able to tell the state that I am married, and to whom.
                      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                        I understand that there are some good legal reasons for which the government has an interest in knowing who is family with whom-- inheritance, power of attorney, custody issues, et cetera. However, I don't believe that the government should be regulating this issue. I shouldn't need to ask the state for permission to marry. I should simply be able to tell the state that I am married, and to whom.
                        You don't have to ask the state for permission to marry. You can get married independent of the state. Also I'm not sure why taoist brought up inheritance, you can just put that in a will and/por the parents' name on the birth certificate, you don't need a marriage license.
                        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          You don't have to ask the state for permission to marry. You can get married independent of the state.
                          Not in any way that the state will recognize. No marriage license, no recognized legal marriage.

                          Also I'm not sure why taoist brought up inheritance, you can just put that in a will and/por the parents' name on the birth certificate, you don't need a marriage license.
                          It can be placed in a will, but I assumed he was referring to default inheritance laws in the instance of one spouse's death.
                          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                            I understand that there are some good legal reasons for which the government has an interest in knowing who is family with whom-- inheritance, power of attorney, custody issues, et cetera. However, I don't believe that the government should be regulating this issue. I shouldn't need to ask the state for permission to marry. I should simply be able to tell the state that I am married, and to whom.
                            If we are going to have equality before the law, then the law needs to be blind to marital status. If you tell the state that you are married, the state's response should be, "I don't care."

                            I too don't see what the issue with inheritance is. You should be able to bequeath whatever you want to whomever you want (and without it being taxed).
                            I suppose one concern might be that you have to go out of your way to add someone to your will. But so? Today you have to go out of your way to get legally married. It's not a default today, so why should it be a default without state "marriage"?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                              I assumed he was referring to default inheritance laws in the instance of one spouse's death.
                              It was intended as an exemplar of the state's interest in regulating marriage, and worked as intended, suggesting the many government interests that require the regulation of marriage.

                              I understand that there are some good legal reasons for which the government has an interest in knowing who is family with whom-- inheritance, power of attorney, custody issues, et cetera. However, I don't believe that the government should be regulating this issue. I shouldn't need to ask the state for permission to marry. I should simply be able to tell the state that I am married, and to whom.
                              Each of these has been the subject of legal dispute with the outcome dependent on whether a particular marriage should be considered valid. Marriages of convenience, marriages between wealthy but mentally incompetent seniors and opportunists, marriages between minors, etc., must be regulated in order to judge their merits in court.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                                It was intended as an exemplar of the state's interest in regulating marriage, and worked as intended, suggesting the many government interests that require the regulation of marriage.
                                And I think I and others have shown above that the question of inheritance does not require regulation of marriage.

                                (Also I've never understood the language of "the state's interest". Surely the state could just as easily have the opposite interest. And why in the world would something be legitimate merely because it is in the state's interest?)

                                Each of these has been the subject of legal dispute with the outcome dependent on whether a particular marriage should be considered valid. Marriages of convenience, marriages between wealthy but mentally incompetent seniors and opportunists, marriages between minors, etc., must be regulated in order to judge their merits in court.
                                They "must"? Why must they? They don't need to be regulated by the state any more than baptisms need to be regulated by the state to judge the baptism's merits (e.g., whether the person was sincere or mentally incompetent, etc.)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                178 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                413 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X