login
Obama endorses same-sex marriage (Page 9)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-05-10 2:46 PM in reply to: #4202942 |
Champion  18680       Lost in the Luminiferous Aether |  Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriagemrbbrad - 2012-05-10 3:40 PM trinnas - 2012-05-10 3:32 PM mrbbrad - 2012-05-10 3:24 PM trinnas - 2012-05-10 3:18 PM Tell that to the religious institutions now required to provide, and cover 100%, birth control for their empolyees. What does this mean? I really don't know. Required? They can't refuse? They have absolutely no recourse, or is it tied to state and/or federal funding for said institutions. Did you miss the insurance, birth control mandate discussions. Though I never did find out how they resolved the issue past a bit of shady "we we are making you do it just not saying we are making you do it". sort of language. I did miss that, and I don't know any of the facts. Never stopped me from having an opinion though! Well You are Satan White Pants after all. |
| 2012-05-10 2:48 PM in reply to: #4202945 |
| Regular 173 | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-05-10 12:41 PM bluebike - 2012-05-10 3:25 PM tealeaf - 2012-05-10 11:02 AM trinnas - 2012-05-10 1:48 PM drewb8 - 2012-05-10 1:44 PM scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 11:40 AM How about a compromise? Catholics won't "impose" their religious beliefs on homosexual marriage if Government will respect their beliefs on mandating payment for birth control. It seems to me that would be consistent policy. Sorry. The people we elect these days say compromise = losing. Gotta be all or nothing for everyone all the time in everything. I don't think it is just our politicians that are that way look at some of this thread from both sides. Neither wants to acknowledge any little bit of valid point from the other. For me, the arguments from the other side are based entirely in religion. IMO, any argument suffixed with "... because that's what my religion teaches" is an invalid argument, because there is no basis in provable fact behind it. They hold up a book written over 3,000 years ago, written by men who sought to control people, and point to it as some sort of source of truth. There has been no secular-based reason given here whatsoever. You might as well tell me "... because the letters in my alphabet soup rearranged themselves to spell 'no gay marriage' " and I would give the same weight to that argument as I would a religious one. I get that people are anti-gay marriage because that's what their religion instructs them to do. They're entitled to that opinion and they can privately practice their religion as they see fit. I am also entitled to disregard such opinions, as they are mine. The constitution provides for the free excercise of religion... meaning we can also practice it in public as we see fit... including voting against politicians or laws that are contrary to our beliefs. So you're OK with animal sacrifices? I am seriously asking. Why? Did you eat a turkey sandwich for lunch and are now feeling guilty? |
| 2012-05-10 2:49 PM in reply to: #4202961 |
| Payson, AZ | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage powerman - 2012-05-10 12:44 PM It's funny how the poll numbers keep climbing in support of SS marriage... that now 50% of Americans support it.... hello... HALF the country does not... you can't just sweep them under the rug and say their opininion does not count. I don't agree with them, but it does count. They can have an opinion all they want. And voice it. But, the country should not allow a majority to revoke or refuse rights from a minority. The country keeps going through this. Woman, blacks, and now gays. Who's next? Why the need to deny rights? Why the need to change the constitution? I keep hearing how wonderful this constitution is yet people sure are hell bent on changing it when it doesn't fit their needs. As long as we don't revoke gun rights of course. |
| 2012-05-10 2:49 PM in reply to: #4202945 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-05-10 3:41 PM bluebike - 2012-05-10 3:25 PM tealeaf - 2012-05-10 11:02 AM trinnas - 2012-05-10 1:48 PM drewb8 - 2012-05-10 1:44 PM scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 11:40 AM How about a compromise? Catholics won't "impose" their religious beliefs on homosexual marriage if Government will respect their beliefs on mandating payment for birth control. It seems to me that would be consistent policy. Sorry. The people we elect these days say compromise = losing. Gotta be all or nothing for everyone all the time in everything. I don't think it is just our politicians that are that way look at some of this thread from both sides. Neither wants to acknowledge any little bit of valid point from the other. For me, the arguments from the other side are based entirely in religion. IMO, any argument suffixed with "... because that's what my religion teaches" is an invalid argument, because there is no basis in provable fact behind it. They hold up a book written over 3,000 years ago, written by men who sought to control people, and point to it as some sort of source of truth. There has been no secular-based reason given here whatsoever. You might as well tell me "... because the letters in my alphabet soup rearranged themselves to spell 'no gay marriage' " and I would give the same weight to that argument as I would a religious one. I get that people are anti-gay marriage because that's what their religion instructs them to do. They're entitled to that opinion and they can privately practice their religion as they see fit. I am also entitled to disregard such opinions, as they are mine. The constitution provides for the free excercise of religion... meaning we can also practice it in public as we see fit... including voting against politicians or laws that are contrary to our beliefs. So you're OK with animal sacrifices? I am seriously asking. Does it involve BACON? |
| 2012-05-10 2:49 PM in reply to: #4202915 |
Extreme Veteran 1260 Miami | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage trinnas - 2012-05-10 3:32 PM mrbbrad - 2012-05-10 3:24 PM trinnas - 2012-05-10 3:18 PM Tell that to the religious institutions now required to provide, and cover 100%, birth control for their empolyees. What does this mean? I really don't know. Required? They can't refuse? They have absolutely no recourse, or is it tied to state and/or federal funding for said institutions. Did you miss the insurance, birth control mandate discussions. Though I never did find out how they resolved the issue past a bit of shady "we we are making you do it just not saying we are making you do it". sort of language. I was trying to stay away from this thread but i failed....Did people miss the part where churches are expressly exempted from the requirement that they offer health insurance to their employees that includes any provision for contraception. The mandate applies to entities owned and operated by them only. What I find funny is this is not something new. Over 50 percent of Americans already live in states that require health insurance companies to provide contraception in their policy offerings. Even states like New York and North Carolina have the identical religious exemptions as those given by the DHHS. To top it off extremely conservative states like Wisconsin, Colorado and Georgia provide no religious exemption whatsoever and where was the fuzz then |
| 2012-05-10 2:51 PM in reply to: #4202977 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage Cuetoy - 2012-05-10 3:49 PM trinnas - 2012-05-10 3:32 PM mrbbrad - 2012-05-10 3:24 PM trinnas - 2012-05-10 3:18 PM Tell that to the religious institutions now required to provide, and cover 100%, birth control for their empolyees. What does this mean? I really don't know. Required? They can't refuse? They have absolutely no recourse, or is it tied to state and/or federal funding for said institutions. Did you miss the insurance, birth control mandate discussions. Though I never did find out how they resolved the issue past a bit of shady "we we are making you do it just not saying we are making you do it". sort of language. I was trying to stay away from this thread but i failed....Did people miss the part where churches are expressly exempted from the requirement that they offer health insurance to their employees that includes any provision for contraception. The mandate applies to entities owned and operated by them only. What I find funny is this is not something new. Over 50 percent of Americans already live in states that require health insurance companies to provide contraception in their policy offerings. Even states like New York and North Carolina have the identical religious exemptions as those given by the DHHS. To top it off extremely conservative states like Wisconsin, Colorado and Georgia provide no religious exemption whatsoever and where was the fuzz then nope not gonna hijack the thread on this. |
| 2012-05-10 2:52 PM in reply to: #4202942 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage mrbbrad - 2012-05-10 3:40 PM trinnas - 2012-05-10 3:32 PM mrbbrad - 2012-05-10 3:24 PM trinnas - 2012-05-10 3:18 PM Tell that to the religious institutions now required to provide, and cover 100%, birth control for their empolyees. What does this mean? I really don't know. Required? They can't refuse? They have absolutely no recourse, or is it tied to state and/or federal funding for said institutions. Did you miss the insurance, birth control mandate discussions. Though I never did find out how they resolved the issue past a bit of shady "we we are making you do it just not saying we are making you do it". sort of language. I did miss that, and I don't know any of the facts. Never stopped me from having an opinion though! Ok, I did a quick Google and in the very short term what I found was "The rule doesn't apply to houses of worship, but does apply to church-affiliated hospitals, colleges, and social service agencies." Looks like another slippery slope. |
| 2012-05-10 2:55 PM in reply to: #4202954 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage tealeaf - 2012-05-10 2:43 PM scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 2:09 PM tealeaf - 2012-05-10 1:02 PM Conversely, how can a government mandate someone to financially support and promote a position that goes against their beliefs? The belief that birth control a) is moral; and b) should be provided free of charge as part of a health plan are just that-- beliefs, albeit non-religious ones, right? trinnas - 2012-05-10 1:48 PM drewb8 - 2012-05-10 1:44 PM scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 11:40 AM How about a compromise? Catholics won't "impose" their religious beliefs on homosexual marriage if Government will respect their beliefs on mandating payment for birth control. It seems to me that would be consistent policy. Sorry. The people we elect these days say compromise = losing. Gotta be all or nothing for everyone all the time in everything. I don't think it is just our politicians that are that way look at some of this thread from both sides. Neither wants to acknowledge any little bit of valid point from the other. For me, the arguments from the other side are based entirely in religion. IMO, any argument suffixed with "... because that's what my religion teaches" is an invalid argument, because there is no basis in provable fact behind it. They hold up a book written over 3,000 years ago, written by men who sought to control people, and point to it as some sort of source of truth. There has been no secular-based reason given here whatsoever. You might as well tell me "... because the letters in my alphabet soup rearranged themselves to spell 'no gay marriage' " and I would give the same weight to that argument as I would a religious one. I get that people are anti-gay marriage because that's what their religion instructs them to do. They're entitled to that opinion and they can privately practice their religion as they see fit. I am also entitled to disregard such opinions, as they are mine. Well, I suppose government does that all the time; for example, when they spend tax dollars to fund certain military operations. There are likely many people who believe that this military operation or that military operation is immoral for reasons having nothing to do with religion. But they have to pay their taxes anyway. Exactly. Neither government nor religion can ever be truly separated, which is why we'll always have these debates. It's like peanut butter cups. Someone will forever be getting their religion in someone else's government, or someone will always be getting their government in someone else's religion. Unfortunately, they'll rarely be two great tastes that taste great together. |
| 2012-05-10 2:55 PM in reply to: #4202989 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage mrbbrad - 2012-05-10 3:52 PM mrbbrad - 2012-05-10 3:40 PM trinnas - 2012-05-10 3:32 PM mrbbrad - 2012-05-10 3:24 PM trinnas - 2012-05-10 3:18 PM Tell that to the religious institutions now required to provide, and cover 100%, birth control for their empolyees. What does this mean? I really don't know. Required? They can't refuse? They have absolutely no recourse, or is it tied to state and/or federal funding for said institutions. Did you miss the insurance, birth control mandate discussions. Though I never did find out how they resolved the issue past a bit of shady "we we are making you do it just not saying we are making you do it". sort of language. I did miss that, and I don't know any of the facts. Never stopped me from having an opinion though! Ok, I did a quick Google and in the very short term what I found was "The rule doesn't apply to houses of worship, but does apply to church-affiliated hospitals, colleges, and social service agencies." Looks like another slippery slope. For another thread..... |
| 2012-05-10 2:57 PM in reply to: #4202877 |
| Regular 57 | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage trinnas - 2012-05-10 2:22 PM ruby2cool - 2012-05-10 3:05 PM bzgl40 - 2012-05-10 1:58 PM ditchmedic - 2012-05-10 11:35 AM
Isnt whom we love, a choice? Of course it is a choice who we love. The question should be "is it a choice to whom we are attracted?". Sexuality is not a black and white issue is it a continuum along a spectrum from homosexuality to heterosexuality with both blended in different amounts in different people.
sure, you can have the attraction and the desire for the same sex. desiring and pursuing to have something you ought not to, is coveting. coveting is physical AND mental. how you choose to deal with it is up to you. you're explaining it in terms of man, which sounds great and makes people feel better about their choices. but man is the sinful being, not God. i think that if the bible is telling me something otherwise, i ought to believe it. Edited by ruby2cool 2012-05-10 2:58 PM |
| 2012-05-10 2:57 PM in reply to: #4202970 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage bluebike - 2012-05-10 3:48 PM BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-05-10 12:41 PM bluebike - 2012-05-10 3:25 PM tealeaf - 2012-05-10 11:02 AM trinnas - 2012-05-10 1:48 PM drewb8 - 2012-05-10 1:44 PM scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 11:40 AM How about a compromise? Catholics won't "impose" their religious beliefs on homosexual marriage if Government will respect their beliefs on mandating payment for birth control. It seems to me that would be consistent policy. Sorry. The people we elect these days say compromise = losing. Gotta be all or nothing for everyone all the time in everything. I don't think it is just our politicians that are that way look at some of this thread from both sides. Neither wants to acknowledge any little bit of valid point from the other. For me, the arguments from the other side are based entirely in religion. IMO, any argument suffixed with "... because that's what my religion teaches" is an invalid argument, because there is no basis in provable fact behind it. They hold up a book written over 3,000 years ago, written by men who sought to control people, and point to it as some sort of source of truth. There has been no secular-based reason given here whatsoever. You might as well tell me "... because the letters in my alphabet soup rearranged themselves to spell 'no gay marriage' " and I would give the same weight to that argument as I would a religious one. I get that people are anti-gay marriage because that's what their religion instructs them to do. They're entitled to that opinion and they can privately practice their religion as they see fit. I am also entitled to disregard such opinions, as they are mine. The constitution provides for the free excercise of religion... meaning we can also practice it in public as we see fit... including voting against politicians or laws that are contrary to our beliefs. So you're OK with animal sacrifices? I am seriously asking. Why? Did you eat a turkey sandwich for lunch and are now feeling guilty? No, I had pizza, but we're not discussing that particular sin I'm leading you a little here, but I'm honestly curious as to how you respond. Based on your above statement and beliefs, would you allow ritual animal sacrifices as an expression of freedom of religion? |
| 2012-05-10 2:58 PM in reply to: #4202976 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage trinnas - 2012-05-10 3:49 PM BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-05-10 3:41 PM bluebike - 2012-05-10 3:25 PM tealeaf - 2012-05-10 11:02 AM trinnas - 2012-05-10 1:48 PM drewb8 - 2012-05-10 1:44 PM scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 11:40 AM How about a compromise? Catholics won't "impose" their religious beliefs on homosexual marriage if Government will respect their beliefs on mandating payment for birth control. It seems to me that would be consistent policy. Sorry. The people we elect these days say compromise = losing. Gotta be all or nothing for everyone all the time in everything. I don't think it is just our politicians that are that way look at some of this thread from both sides. Neither wants to acknowledge any little bit of valid point from the other. For me, the arguments from the other side are based entirely in religion. IMO, any argument suffixed with "... because that's what my religion teaches" is an invalid argument, because there is no basis in provable fact behind it. They hold up a book written over 3,000 years ago, written by men who sought to control people, and point to it as some sort of source of truth. There has been no secular-based reason given here whatsoever. You might as well tell me "... because the letters in my alphabet soup rearranged themselves to spell 'no gay marriage' " and I would give the same weight to that argument as I would a religious one. I get that people are anti-gay marriage because that's what their religion instructs them to do. They're entitled to that opinion and they can privately practice their religion as they see fit. I am also entitled to disregard such opinions, as they are mine. The constitution provides for the free excercise of religion... meaning we can also practice it in public as we see fit... including voting against politicians or laws that are contrary to our beliefs. So you're OK with animal sacrifices? I am seriously asking. Does it involve BACON? Absolutely not, I keep kosher. How dare you infringe on my religious rights? |
| 2012-05-10 2:59 PM in reply to: #4203021 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-05-10 3:58 PM trinnas - 2012-05-10 3:49 PM BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-05-10 3:41 PM bluebike - 2012-05-10 3:25 PM tealeaf - 2012-05-10 11:02 AM trinnas - 2012-05-10 1:48 PM drewb8 - 2012-05-10 1:44 PM scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 11:40 AM How about a compromise? Catholics won't "impose" their religious beliefs on homosexual marriage if Government will respect their beliefs on mandating payment for birth control. It seems to me that would be consistent policy. Sorry. The people we elect these days say compromise = losing. Gotta be all or nothing for everyone all the time in everything. I don't think it is just our politicians that are that way look at some of this thread from both sides. Neither wants to acknowledge any little bit of valid point from the other. For me, the arguments from the other side are based entirely in religion. IMO, any argument suffixed with "... because that's what my religion teaches" is an invalid argument, because there is no basis in provable fact behind it. They hold up a book written over 3,000 years ago, written by men who sought to control people, and point to it as some sort of source of truth. There has been no secular-based reason given here whatsoever. You might as well tell me "... because the letters in my alphabet soup rearranged themselves to spell 'no gay marriage' " and I would give the same weight to that argument as I would a religious one. I get that people are anti-gay marriage because that's what their religion instructs them to do. They're entitled to that opinion and they can privately practice their religion as they see fit. I am also entitled to disregard such opinions, as they are mine. The constitution provides for the free excercise of religion... meaning we can also practice it in public as we see fit... including voting against politicians or laws that are contrary to our beliefs. So you're OK with animal sacrifices? I am seriously asking. Does it involve BACON? Absolutely not, I keep kosher. How dare you infringe on my religious rights? Good more BACON for ME! |
| 2012-05-10 3:00 PM in reply to: #4203014 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-05-10 3:57 PM bluebike - 2012-05-10 3:48 PM BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-05-10 12:41 PM bluebike - 2012-05-10 3:25 PM tealeaf - 2012-05-10 11:02 AM trinnas - 2012-05-10 1:48 PM drewb8 - 2012-05-10 1:44 PM scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 11:40 AM How about a compromise? Catholics won't "impose" their religious beliefs on homosexual marriage if Government will respect their beliefs on mandating payment for birth control. It seems to me that would be consistent policy. Sorry. The people we elect these days say compromise = losing. Gotta be all or nothing for everyone all the time in everything. I don't think it is just our politicians that are that way look at some of this thread from both sides. Neither wants to acknowledge any little bit of valid point from the other. For me, the arguments from the other side are based entirely in religion. IMO, any argument suffixed with "... because that's what my religion teaches" is an invalid argument, because there is no basis in provable fact behind it. They hold up a book written over 3,000 years ago, written by men who sought to control people, and point to it as some sort of source of truth. There has been no secular-based reason given here whatsoever. You might as well tell me "... because the letters in my alphabet soup rearranged themselves to spell 'no gay marriage' " and I would give the same weight to that argument as I would a religious one. I get that people are anti-gay marriage because that's what their religion instructs them to do. They're entitled to that opinion and they can privately practice their religion as they see fit. I am also entitled to disregard such opinions, as they are mine. The constitution provides for the free excercise of religion... meaning we can also practice it in public as we see fit... including voting against politicians or laws that are contrary to our beliefs. So you're OK with animal sacrifices? I am seriously asking. Why? Did you eat a turkey sandwich for lunch and are now feeling guilty? No, I had pizza, But you are not married! |
| 2012-05-10 3:04 PM in reply to: #4202999 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 12:55 PM Exactly. Neither government nor religion can ever be truly separated, which is why we'll always have these debates. It's like peanut butter cups. Someone will forever be getting their religion in someone else's government, or someone will always be getting their government in someone else's religion. Unfortunately, they'll rarely be two great tastes that taste great together. I understand what you are saying and I agree with the above. For me in this debate though to the people quoting a religious reasons for opposing this I don't see how it makes a difference except for the word marriage. If they called is a civil union and gave all the same rights as a married couple would some people change their minds? They already gay so being bound by a civil union that will help with legal issues and give them the same rights as other Americans will not make it anymore of a sin or really change anything for them besides the fact that they don't like it. |
| 2012-05-10 3:05 PM in reply to: #4202690 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 1:23 PM BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-05-10 1:11 PM I still can't get over the fact that it this all boils down to religious viewpoints being applied as the standard for establishment of civil law. No, no, a thousand times no. Theocracies are by their very nature repressive. Why do we wish to become what we as a nation proclaim to the rest of the world to be unjust? When did these words become hollow and devoid of meaning? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I think it's the "under God" part that adds some gray to the issue. The "under G-d" portion was added in the 1950's at the behest of a number of religious organizations, more than half a century after the original pledge had been written. The Baptist minister who wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance didn't see the need to add any references to G-d.. So, no gray area there, at least not for me. |
| 2012-05-10 3:05 PM in reply to: #4202977 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage Cuetoy - 2012-05-10 2:49 PM Did people miss the part where churches are expressly exempted from the requirement that they offer health insurance to their employees that includes any provision for contraception. The mandate applies to entities owned and operated by them only. What I find funny is this is not something new. Over 50 percent of Americans already live in states that require health insurance companies to provide contraception in their policy offerings. Even states like New York and North Carolina have the identical religious exemptions as those given by the DHHS. To top it off extremely conservative states like Wisconsin, Colorado and Georgia provide no religious exemption whatsoever and where was the fuzz then Did you miss the part where this stunt "compromise" was flatly rejected by the Church? http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/dolan_blasts_obama_bitter_pil... BTW, Wisconsin is "extremely conservative"? Really? That will be news to the voters here, who have voted Blue in presidential elections since Reagan. |
| 2012-05-10 3:07 PM in reply to: #4203047 |
| Regular 57 | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage Big Appa - 2012-05-10 3:04 PM scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 12:55 PM Exactly. Neither government nor religion can ever be truly separated, which is why we'll always have these debates. It's like peanut butter cups. Someone will forever be getting their religion in someone else's government, or someone will always be getting their government in someone else's religion. Unfortunately, they'll rarely be two great tastes that taste great together. I understand what you are saying and I agree with the above. For me in this debate though to the people quoting a religious reasons for opposing this I don't see how it makes a difference except for the word marriage. If they called is a civil union and gave all the same rights as a married couple would some people change their minds? They already gay so being bound by a civil union that will help with legal issues and give them the same rights as other Americans will not make it anymore of a sin or really change anything for them besides the fact that they don't like it.
powerman says it pretty well on page 10. |
| 2012-05-10 3:10 PM in reply to: #4203047 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage Big Appa - 2012-05-10 4:04 PM scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 12:55 PM Exactly. Neither government nor religion can ever be truly separated, which is why we'll always have these debates. It's like peanut butter cups. Someone will forever be getting their religion in someone else's government, or someone will always be getting their government in someone else's religion. Unfortunately, they'll rarely be two great tastes that taste great together. I understand what you are saying and I agree with the above. For me in this debate though to the people quoting a religious reasons for opposing this I don't see how it makes a difference except for the word marriage. If they called is a civil union and gave all the same rights as a married couple would some people change their minds? They already gay so being bound by a civil union that will help with legal issues and give them the same rights as other Americans will not make it anymore of a sin or really change anything for them besides the fact that they don't like it. Sorry, but civil union versus marriage is akin to the "coloreds" water fountain and Jim Crowe laws. Supposedly separate, but equal. We all know how horrible that idea is. We either have same-sex marriage, or we don't. |
| 2012-05-10 3:10 PM in reply to: #4203047 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage Big Appa - 2012-05-10 4:04 PM scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 12:55 PM Exactly. Neither government nor religion can ever be truly separated, which is why we'll always have these debates. It's like peanut butter cups. Someone will forever be getting their religion in someone else's government, or someone will always be getting their government in someone else's religion. Unfortunately, they'll rarely be two great tastes that taste great together. I understand what you are saying and I agree with the above. For me in this debate though to the people quoting a religious reasons for opposing this I don't see how it makes a difference except for the word marriage. If they called is a civil union and gave all the same rights as a married couple would some people change their minds? They already gay so being bound by a civil union that will help with legal issues and give them the same rights as other Americans will not make it anymore of a sin or really change anything for them besides the fact that they don't like it. Sorry, but civil union versus marriage is akin to the "coloreds" water fountain and Jim Crowe laws. Supposedly separate, but equal. We all know how horrible that idea is. We either have same-sex marriage, or we don't. |
| 2012-05-10 3:12 PM in reply to: #4203047 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage Big Appa - 2012-05-10 3:04 PM scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 12:55 PM Exactly. Neither government nor religion can ever be truly separated, which is why we'll always have these debates. It's like peanut butter cups. Someone will forever be getting their religion in someone else's government, or someone will always be getting their government in someone else's religion. Unfortunately, they'll rarely be two great tastes that taste great together. I understand what you are saying and I agree with the above. For me in this debate though to the people quoting a religious reasons for opposing this I don't see how it makes a difference except for the word marriage. If they called is a civil union and gave all the same rights as a married couple would some people change their minds? They already gay so being bound by a civil union that will help with legal issues and give them the same rights as other Americans will not make it anymore of a sin or really change anything for them besides the fact that they don't like it. Yes, I pointed this out earlier. I think this is really in many ways a fight over the specific word "marriage" by both sides. I think gays want to be able to own that word to truly feel accepted as equals in society, and opponents want to protect the use of that word because of the tradition (some of it religious, especially because of its use in scripture) behind it in referring to the relationship between a man and a woman. Is it just semantics? I don't think it is to people who feel strongly on either side. BTW, I'm not one of those people. |
| 2012-05-10 3:14 PM in reply to: #4202780 |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage Big Appa - 2012-05-10 1:48 PM I understand everyone’s faith but that really has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I want to know where does the bible say for the United States of America to stop a legal union (not religious) between two people of the same sex?
Tell me where int he Bible it says that driving 100mph down I40 is illegal?? not sure I see your argument. |
| 2012-05-10 3:14 PM in reply to: #4203071 |
Champion 10550 Austin, Texas | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage pitt83 - 2012-05-10 3:10 PM Big Appa - 2012-05-10 4:04 PM Sorry, but civil union versus marriage is akin to the "coloreds" water fountain and Jim Crowe laws. Supposedly separate, but equal. We all know how horrible that idea is. We either have same-sex marriage, or we don't. scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 12:55 PM Exactly. Neither government nor religion can ever be truly separated, which is why we'll always have these debates. It's like peanut butter cups. Someone will forever be getting their religion in someone else's government, or someone will always be getting their government in someone else's religion. Unfortunately, they'll rarely be two great tastes that taste great together. I understand what you are saying and I agree with the above. For me in this debate though to the people quoting a religious reasons for opposing this I don't see how it makes a difference except for the word marriage. If they called is a civil union and gave all the same rights as a married couple would some people change their minds? They already gay so being bound by a civil union that will help with legal issues and give them the same rights as other Americans will not make it anymore of a sin or really change anything for them besides the fact that they don't like it. I was trying to figure out a way to say exactly that very thing, thanks Pitt! |
| 2012-05-10 3:16 PM in reply to: #4203070 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage pitt83 - 2012-05-10 1:10 PM Big Appa - 2012-05-10 4:04 PM Sorry, but civil union versus marriage is akin to the "coloreds" water fountain and Jim Crowe laws. Supposedly separate, but equal. We all know how horrible that idea is. We either have same-sex marriage, or we don't. scoobysdad - 2012-05-10 12:55 PM Exactly. Neither government nor religion can ever be truly separated, which is why we'll always have these debates. It's like peanut butter cups. Someone will forever be getting their religion in someone else's government, or someone will always be getting their government in someone else's religion. Unfortunately, they'll rarely be two great tastes that taste great together. I understand what you are saying and I agree with the above. For me in this debate though to the people quoting a religious reasons for opposing this I don't see how it makes a difference except for the word marriage. If they called is a civil union and gave all the same rights as a married couple would some people change their minds? They already gay so being bound by a civil union that will help with legal issues and give them the same rights as other Americans will not make it anymore of a sin or really change anything for them besides the fact that they don't like it. I agree, I was just asking what the line is for the ones against. |
| 2012-05-10 3:17 PM in reply to: #4202974 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage bzgl40 - 2012-05-10 1:49 PM powerman - 2012-05-10 12:44 PM It's funny how the poll numbers keep climbing in support of SS marriage... that now 50% of Americans support it.... hello... HALF the country does not... you can't just sweep them under the rug and say their opininion does not count. I don't agree with them, but it does count. They can have an opinion all they want. And voice it. But, the country should not allow a majority to revoke or refuse rights from a minority. The country keeps going through this. Woman, blacks, and now gays. Who's next? Why the need to deny rights? Why the need to change the constitution? I keep hearing how wonderful this constitution is yet people sure are hell bent on changing it when it doesn't fit their needs. As long as we don't revoke gun rights of course. And I completely agree with you. Times change. And even if it is a "lifestyle" so what. Drugs should be legal too. Times change... We go from it not being a big deal to most, to where half say but what's the point again, then things change. And no, the majority should not trample on the rights of the minority... wasn't making a case for it... just sayin we are at that tipping point and there will most certainly be discussion and disagreement for what ever reason. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK