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

Definitions of Marriage

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

  • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    You did not. Answer the question at the bottom of the list I offered. Until you do that, your response is nothing more than a giant whine fest. When you do, then you will see that the law is applied equally.
    Whine all you want. Discrimination against gays for the sake of discrimination is a lost battle. Within a short time, same-sex marriage will be the law of the land, sexual-orientation will be added to the CRA list, and you can cry into your bible until you find the next group to hate on.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by phank View Post
      Whine all you want. Discrimination against gays for the sake of discrimination is a lost battle. Within a short time, same-sex marriage will be the law of the land, sexual-orientation will be added to the CRA list, and you can cry into your bible until you find the next group to hate on.
      If you make one more post like this, phank, I will ask you to leave this thread. If you're not willing to engage in this discussion in good faith, I'd rather not have your participation at all.
      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by phank View Post
        Whine all you want.
        So, posting a list of humans and then asking a question based on the available legal factors for each is whining?

        Human male A (25, unmarried US Citizen) is standing in a room with 10 other people. 5 are female and 5 are male

        Human female B is 21, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
        Human female C is 14, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
        Human female D is 25, married US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
        Human female E is 19, unmarried US Citizen, and is Human male A's sister
        Human female F is 30, unmarried British Ciitizen, and is not related to human male A
        Human male B is 21, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
        Human male C is 14, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
        Human male D is 25, married US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
        Human male E is 19, unmarried US Citizen, and is Human male A's brother
        Human male F is 30, unmarried British Ciitizen, and is not related to human male A


        Who could human male A marry under the law (before the recent changes in the law)
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Who could human male A marry under the law (before the recent changes in the law)
          You can't look it up yourself? Have you tried google?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by phank View Post
            You can't look it up yourself? Have you tried google?
            you sure are afraid to answer the question. I understand. It is ok phank. We all know the answer and how it destroys the "unequal" nonsense. Your lack of courage here is understandable.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              you sure are afraid to answer the question. I understand. It is ok phank. We all know the answer and how it destroys the "unequal" nonsense. Your lack of courage here is understandable.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                you sure are afraid to answer the question. I understand. It is ok phank. We all know the answer and how it destroys the "unequal" nonsense. Your lack of courage here is understandable.
                Yawn. If you say so. You "win" whatever prize you've been trying for. Meanwhile, laws are changing in positive ways. We understand that you don't like the changes. It's OK, Bill. You'll live with them (and probably never notice a difference anyway).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by phank View Post
                  Yawn. If you say so. You "win" whatever prize you've been trying for. Meanwhile, laws are changing in positive ways. We understand that you don't like the changes. It's OK, Bill. You'll live with them (and probably never notice a difference anyway).
                  OK, I'm going to ask you to leave now, phank. I'd love to have you stay and provide your perspective, which I think is in many ways wonderfully typical of the modern view, but it's clear that you're not particularly inclined to discuss this in sincerity and good faith. Please don't post in this thread again.
                  Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by phank View Post
                    laws are changing in positive ways
                    Indeed.
                    "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 Spartacus View Post
                      OK, I'm going to ask you to leave now, phank. I'd love to have you stay and provide your perspective, which I think is in many ways wonderfully typical of the modern view, but it's clear that you're not particularly inclined to discuss this in sincerity and good faith. Please don't post in this thread again.
                      Edited by a Moderator
                      Last edited by Bill the Cat; 06-12-2014, 12:41 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by phank View Post
                        Yawn. If you say so. You "win" whatever prize you've been trying for.
                        What I am showing is that the law was applied equally to every individual citizen in exactly the same way before this "doctrinal evolution", and that the charge of violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th is garbage. If you would simply respond to the challenge with who human male A can marry, I can prove my point. If I answer for you, then it is not helping you discover it for yourself. Why are you so adamant that you will not answer a simple question?
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by phank View Post
                          Sorry, but that kind of snark doesn't pass for intelligent discussion. I've been discussing this in full sincerity and good faith, but that does NOT include doing someone else's homework for them. If refusing to look up what CP can spend a few minutes doing means I get to be called a coward, then who is not acting in good faith anyway?

                          So I'll repeat for you: equality under the law is being extended to include yet another group which has been discriminated against for no reason the state can find compelling. I regard this as a good sign, much as I regarded the elimination of slavery, and extending the right to vote to women, as good things.

                          If you are able to present a coherent argument as to why the state has a compelling rationale for denying equal rights to gays, please do so. People who favor legal equality are not ipso facto favoring it insincerely or in bad faith. If you can NOT present such an argument, telling those who build good arguments to shut up and go away hardly puts you in a good light. Can you do better?
                          When a thread starter asks you to leave, you leave. You don't post again, you don't pass go.

                          Please honour the wishes. Obviously I can't "officially" do anything about it, but I know a few people who haven't participated in this thread who will.
                          The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            What I am showing is that the law was applied equally to every individual citizen in exactly the same way before this "doctrinal evolution", and that the charge of violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th is garbage. If you would simply respond to the challenge with who human male A can marry, I can prove my point. If I answer for you, then it is not helping you discover it for yourself. Why are you so adamant that you will not answer a simple question?
                            Non sequitur. That the existing laws were applied equally is irrelevant to the fact the existing laws were discriminatory. That's why so many of those unconstitutional laws have been changed over the last few years.

                            I must say your argument is one of the dumber ones in favor of continued discrimination I've seen, and that cover a lot of ground.

                            Comment


                            • Outis,

                              I think I should have some free time this upcoming week to give this thread some more attention. I'd like to propose the following exercise as one possible way to draw out the appropriate questions.

                              It seems impossible to avoid the fact that alternative views of marriage are closely tied with relatively conservative religious groups. It is therefore easy to assume that man-woman marriage is an inherently religious institution, but I do not think that this is quite true. As I understand it, Christianity has placed something of a theological lacquer over what they see as a natural human institution. There are, then, two layers: the theological/religious and the natural.

                              It is worth noting, however, that to say that it is natural is not necessarily to invoke anything like natural law theory in any of its modern incarnations. Rather, I mean that at some point, religious authorities noticed something that people were already doing and said "this practice has religious significance." They chose this type of relationship and not others, though they may have considered other types of relationship important, to sacramentalize (and then to develop elaborate codes of canon law regarding). The problem for me to address, then, is to adequately explain what that natural practice was.

                              Does this explanation seem unnecessary, redundant, or otherwise unhelpful?
                              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                                Non sequitur. That the existing laws were applied equally is irrelevant to the fact the existing laws were discriminatory. That's why so many of those unconstitutional laws have been changed over the last few years.

                                I must say your argument is one of the dumber ones in favor of continued discrimination I've seen, and that cover a lot of ground.
                                Just on the face of it, there's something strange about any interpretation of the Constitution through which long-standing laws can suddenly be ruled unconstitutional?

                                Would you be willing to flesh out this narrative a bit more?
                                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 08:05 PM
                                8 responses
                                42 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 04:42 PM
                                7 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 09-25-2021, 02:40 PM
                                24 responses
                                127 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, 09-25-2021, 01:16 PM
                                28 responses
                                204 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 09-25-2021, 11:32 AM
                                24 responses
                                122 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Working...
                                X