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.
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
In response to another thread: "Gay Marriage"
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostDo you support the legal protection of the hate speech of the KKK?
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
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI'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?"
And as for the point of my OP, I am simply expressing my opinion.
Comment
-
Your inconsistency is astounding. When asked if you support the free speech of the KKK, you respond...
Originally posted by Outis View PostA good point. Yes I do, though (as I assume you do) I find it distasteful in the extreme.
Originally posted by Outis View PostI, on the other hand, refuse to support legal protection of bigotry, regardless of its excuse.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Outis View PostI 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
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYour inconsistency is astounding.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostIn 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
-
Originally posted by Outis View PostThen be astounded. Paprika brought up a good point, and I had to reconsider my views.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Outis View PostAnd 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
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostTHEN you go right back into the phony "commerce" thing. You might want to reconsider that.
DO you have a problem with any of these statements?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Outis View PostIn world history, they are--we are discussing US history, where many individual things may be anomalous, but still occur, and are relevant.
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.
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.
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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 11:40 AM
|
2 responses
31 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 03:28 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 06:30 AM
|
15 responses
79 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 04:20 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:24 AM
|
25 responses
144 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 04:13 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 09:13 AM
|
43 responses
239 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-02-2024, 09:15 AM
|
31 responses
150 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:12 PM
|
Comment