Originally posted by Starlight
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Texas has first Lesbian Marriage despite ban
Collapse
X
-
"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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostYour church is evil. Seriously.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
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI see you're from Texas. • Edited by a Moderator •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
-
Originally posted by Starlight View Post
Your church is evil. Seriously.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Knowing Thomas View PostWeren'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 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
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI 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?
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
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI referenced thoseThe first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lao tzu View PostWould you extend that position to include regulating inheritance?"[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
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostI 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."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
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostYou 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."[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
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostI 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostI assumed he was referring to default inheritance laws in the instance of one spouse's death.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lao tzu View PostIt 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.
(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.
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
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
413 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
383 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment