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

In response to another thread: "Gay Marriage"

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

  • #46
    Epoetker, if I have any interest in your hate-filled rantings or the rantings of those as hate-filled as you are, I will advise you of that fact.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      No objections to a business saying "We don't serve blacks" for sincere religious reasons.
      I, on the other hand, refuse to support legal protection of bigotry, regardless of its excuse.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Outis View Post
        I, on the other hand, refuse to support legal protection of bigotry, regardless of its excuse.
        Do you support the legal protection of the hate speech of the KKK?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          Do you support the legal protection of the hate speech of the KKK?
          A good point. Yes I do, though (as I assume you do) I find it distasteful in the extreme. But speech and commerce are two separate areas in the law. If someone wants to be a bigot, for sincere religious reasons or for whatever reason, that is their right. If someone wants to engage in commerce, they are then subject to the appropriate laws and regulations.

          With the KKK and other bigots, however, I can look forward to the day that they die off of old age.

          As a side note, we may have to put this discussion on hold until one of the moderators has had the opportunity to remove the spambot and clean up the mess.

          Comment


          • #50
            I'm actually not sure what's the point of your OP. Are you trying to tell the Christians "Don't get so worked up, it will have no negative impact on you?"

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              I'm actually not sure what's the point of your OP. Are you trying to tell the Christians "Don't get so worked up, it will have no negative impact on you?"
              I have asked (repeatedly) for any negative impact against Christians, and have had no response. Can you think of a negative impact?

              And as for the point of my OP, I am simply expressing my opinion.

              Comment


              • #52
                Your inconsistency is astounding. When asked if you support the free speech of the KKK, you respond...
                Originally posted by Outis View Post
                A good point. Yes I do, though (as I assume you do) I find it distasteful in the extreme.
                Yet, you also make the statement:
                Originally posted by Outis View Post
                I, on the other hand, refuse to support legal protection of bigotry, regardless of its excuse.
                So, which is it? You DO support free speech, or you REFUSE to support it? I'm beginning to think you're just a , albeit a somewhat eloquent one.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Outis View Post
                  I have asked (repeatedly) for any negative impact against Christians, and have had no response. Can you think of a negative impact?

                  And as for the point of my OP, I am simply expressing my opinion.
                  In my first post here I brought one up. I quote: "Refusing to provide services for homosexual 'marriages' can and will result in being sued."

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Your inconsistency is astounding.
                    Then be astounded. Paprika brought up a good point, and I had to reconsider my views. Do you have a problem with that, or do you always insult people for considering the views of others and modifying their views as needed?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      In my first post here I brought one up. I quote: "Refusing to provide services for homosexual 'marriages' can and will result in being sued."
                      And as I said, if you are in commerce, you must abide by the laws and regulations regarding commerce. Everybody else has to do so. Why should a specific segment of Christians be different?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Outis View Post
                        Then be astounded. Paprika brought up a good point, and I had to reconsider my views.
                        THEN you go right back into the phony "commerce" thing. You might want to reconsider that.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Outis View Post
                          And as I said, if you are in commerce, you must abide by the laws and regulations regarding commerce. Everybody else has to do so. Why should a specific segment of Christians be different?
                          You asked if it would negatively impact Christians. I am merely pointing out that it will for some Christians.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            THEN you go right back into the phony "commerce" thing. You might want to reconsider that.
                            Last I checked, a flower shop (the example Mrs. Mossrose brought up) is commerce. Renting a public venue is commerce. You and I have already discussed the difference between "renting a public venue" and "renting a hall for religious purposes."

                            DO you have a problem with any of these statements?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Outis View Post
                              In world history, they are--we are discussing US history, where many individual things may be anomalous, but still occur, and are relevant.
                              If discrimination against LGBT people is also historically anomalous with respect to world history, then the question becomes whether societies that have managed to accept LGBT people have also held man-woman marriage to be a uniquely valuable institution.

                              And considering the context of US history, your analogy of copper and steel is splendidly answered in certain specific Supreme Court cases--namely "Loving v. Virginia" and "Brown v. Board." There is no "separate but equal" under US law, Mr. Spartacus.
                              I don't think that quite fits the argument I made, but we can get into that later. I think we have bigger fish to fry. Incidentally, feel free to call me "Spartacus" or even just "Spart"-- "Mr. Spartacus" is my father . I appreciate that you're trying to be respectful, but I think you'll find that people on this forum tend to value friendliness over formality.

                              Marriage is a kinship arrangement between consenting adults that entails certain rights, responsibilities, and relatedness. In my view, the affected parties should have the primary responsibility of designating what the rights, responsibilities, and relationships precisely entail, provided that:
                              1. All parties are consenting adults.
                              2. All children are brought up with proper care.
                              3. No fraud, abuse, or neglect occur.
                              Great, thanks. Now that we have our two definitions, there are two questions that need to be settled:
                              1. Whether each of our respective definitions is logically internally coherent
                              2. If each of our definitions is coherent, are they different enough with respect to their purpose and value that using the exact same legal mechanisms to facilitate both is NOT coherent or effective?

                              If our answer to both of these statements is "yes," then it seems that, whatever protections we extend to other kinds of relationships, the definition of marriage between a man and a woman which I have laid out is nonetheless worthy of unique civil protections.

                              To put it very, very bluntly: if we answer both statements with "yes," I win. If the answer to either statement is "no," then you win.

                              Are these terms acceptable to you?
                              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                No objections to a business saying "We don't serve blacks" for sincere religious reasons.
                                Whoa!

                                And dayum!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                399 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
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X