Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,535
Your salvation depends on my accepting Jesus? Yikes.
I suspect this was just a mistake, rather than a sin.
Federal Judge rules Utah's ban on gay marrage illegal. Internet about to explode
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
Your salvation depends on my accepting Jesus? Yikes.
I suspect this was just a mistake, rather than a sin.
Puck Nutty
Prince
Yeah, but you're complicit because you agree with your God's beliefs. Just 'cuz you don't specifically make a certain statement, doesn't get you off the hook.
duckstab
Child of Noble Family
I can't say I'm surprised.
Although SCOTUS has been leaning towards support for marriage equality they seem to have been proceeding with extreme caution and ruling as narrowly as possible.
Shelby's ruling, by contrast, was very broad. If and when the case ends up on their docket it will either make marriage equality the law of the land or will leave it forever up to the states. In the former case, same-sex marriage will be legal everywhere in the U.S. by the end of the year. In the latter, it'll probably be another 20 years or so before the last red state is dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. The current justices don't seem eager to make that call either way.
Dralix
Killer of threads
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,407
Actually, I fail to see what any of that has to do with the topic at hand.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Oh why bother?
To be fair, some ancient authors did so. You're just choosing to agree with them.
Fixed. Thanks.
The point is to express "being against gay marriage" is not the same as "being against people". I, and I venture millions of others, am against gay marriage not because I'm a "homophobe". That is dismissing our viewpoint with a convenient epithet. It's because "that is not what marriage is".
I like people just fine and I could care less who you want to hump. I don't even run around villifying people because of who they hump. I cannot, however, abide by the desecration of something I consider sacred, and that is what this push for gay marriage is doing.
Maybe some people can't understand the difference because they so much "self-actualize" based on their sexuality that anything that seems against it is to be removed. That, in my opinion, is too bad they have to feel that way, but understandable from the stigma under which people who feel their sentiment have suffered. That is certainly not right, but what is being done now is not right either.
Do you want things to be "right" or do you just want revenge? I honestly don't think alot of you can tell the difference.
What is "right" about secular law submitting to religious definitions in the promotion of inequality?
There's always inequality. Saying otherwise is fooling yourself. I said before, everyone could and should get what they want through revised definitions and privileges of civil unions, but because of "what ever's in a word" people just can't be happy with that, either. I charge they want to tear something down, not build something up. It's plain as day to me.
edit: What should my tradition do now to redefine the correct union of man and woman? Do you care about that?
useless
Social Justice Rogue
So what should happen then? You say it's wrong for homosexuals to be stigmatised because of their orientation, but then, in the same paragraph you claim it's wrong for them to be more open about their desires to be treated in an equal manner.
Also playing the "Oh there will always be discrimination" card is such a goddamn copout. Also, how is allowing MORE people to join in an institution akin to tearing it down? Especially when it's declining amongst hetero people.
Also playing the "Oh there will always be discrimination" card is such a goddamn copout. Also, how is allowing MORE people to join in an institution akin to tearing it down? Especially when it's declining amongst hetero people.
Dralix
Killer of threads
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,407
Yeah, they tried separate but equal before. Turns out it's not equal.
I feel in that statement you're using a very liberal, broad understanding of "what it is to be treated in an equal manner".
Being "treated in an equal manner in this secular society" is to share insurance premiums, how a doctor must treat one's wishes if the other is seriously ill, who can testify against another, things like that. You should be pushing for civil union law, not flagrantly attacking religious contention.
Then under law all marriages can be civil unions, but not all civil unions are marriages. I'd be just fine with that, too.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
In this thread, Straight male tells homosexuals what they should do so they can be treated equally by society.
I will never, ever, under any circumstance, allow myself to be in such a position that I will recognize a civil union between 2 men or 2 women as "marriage", which is "matrimony", which is "under God".
I don't care what law you trick people to make. I will never observe it.
I don't care what law you trick people to make. I will never observe it.
Dralix
Killer of threads
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,407
No, that would not be acceptable.
If there was no such thing as marriage in the eyes of the law, only in the eyes of the church, and if any and all legislation referencing marriage was changed to reflect civil union, then that would be acceptable.
You can have your civil ceremony, and then, if you want have a religious ceremony. Or you can have one ceremony that covers both. You know, exactly how it is today.
The problem I have with that suggestion though is cost. Personally, I don't believe it's worth the time and effort to rewrite the law books just because some people don't want to share civil marriage with other people.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Thank god that the opinion you espouse is becoming less prevalent. One day it will be akin to being against Inter-racial marriage (btw the arguments against SSM are disturbingly similar to those again Inter-racial marriage) and those who espouse such views will be ostracised.
Dralix
Killer of threads
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,407
I doubt they want you to recognize it it any way other than to acknowledge that their marriage is legal if and when such a legal situation presents itself.
Or ...
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
That's fantastic old chap. Every right to not recognise whatever the heck you like.
The civilised world will move on regardless.
Similar threads
