bit-tech.net

Go Back   bit-tech.net Forums > Misc > Serious

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 5th Mar 2014, 13:27   #21
Nexxo
Whatever's Geek.
 
Nexxo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 31,304
Nexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming Saiyan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty View Post
Being a gay person in a religion that doesn't tolerate gays is akin to being in an abusive relationship - until you walk away and leave it all behind you will never find true happiness.
That is to some extent true. And what do we know about why some people find it difficult to leave abusive relationships?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty View Post
Having spent half a lifetime "doing philosophy" I find myself in my thirties no longer caring quite as much about who's right and wrong. But most people are wrong
All beliefs are true, for a given value of 'true'.
__________________
In memory of Kidmod-Southpaw (1997 - 2014), Teelzebub (1955 - 2016) and Waynio (1978 - 2016)

"We are the music makers; we are the dreamers of dreams"


Current project: Metaversa 02 Ada.
Nexxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 13:32   #22
walle
I *am* a Dremel
 
walle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,533
walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo View Post
I think that I have sufficiently pointed out that not all cultures do, not all people and even not all people in this society.
I think our societies and cultures have sufficiently demonstrated that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, Nexxo, that it is an intrinsic part of the fabric of our cultures too, furthermore, that it has been the definition for the past (insert amount) of years. And as I said: The homosexuals are imposing themselves onto an institution whose values and beliefs they do not share. Afterwards they proceed to complain when the peoples whose values and beliefs they do not share react negatively to them imposing themselves onto said institution, that is to say: marriage.

I don't have any issues with a legal framework that would give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married, that's not the issue at hand here.
__________________
"Freedom of speech can't have "should include this" or "shouldn't include this" - it is an absolute." -- specofdust
"Once rights are gone, they almost never come back." -- eddie_dane

Last edited by walle; 5th Mar 2014 at 13:39.
walle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 13:41   #23
hyperion
Hypermodder
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 697
hyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyan
Gays aren't forcing anyone else into gay marriages. You are against their right to marry whoever they choose, so it is you in fact that is imposing yourself on the lives of others, treading on the rights of others and claiming an institution that isn't yours.
hyperion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 13:45   #24
walle
I *am* a Dremel
 
walle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,533
walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperion View Post
it is you in fact that is imposing yourself on the lives of others, treading on the rights of others
Wrong, try again.

Let me refresh your memory: "I don't have any issues with a legal framework that would give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married, that's not the issue at hand here."

It is the homosexuals that are imposing themselves onto an institution whose values and beliefs they do not share. I (and others) are not imposing ourselves onto them, and despite this homosexuals are the ones accusing heterosexuals for bigotry and intolerance.
__________________
"Freedom of speech can't have "should include this" or "shouldn't include this" - it is an absolute." -- specofdust
"Once rights are gone, they almost never come back." -- eddie_dane

Last edited by walle; 5th Mar 2014 at 13:57.
walle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 13:58   #25
Shirty
Time travelling rogue
Moderator
 
Shirty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1982
Location: A hole
Posts: 11,685
Shirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, Shirty
So you're essentially arguing for the protection of a word?

Perhaps the new ceremony can be identical to marriage in every facet, but we'll just call it "garriage" instead, would that suit?

We have already concluded that marriage transcends religion, and even within a religious framework we see polgamy etc, which is ample proof that for millenia leading up to this point the definition of marriage has been a bit more open than man + woman.

If you're talking Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh etc marriage then that's got entirely different connotations to generic marriage. In the eyes of God(s) and the community, not just the state.
__________________
6700K | Z170I | Liqtech 120X | EVGA GTX 980Ti SC | 16GB | 1TB M550 | Node 304 | SS-460FL2 (fanless) | Dell S2740L | Ducky TKL | Logitech G500

I also have a Surface Pro 2, even though I'm not a pro...
Shirty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 13:58   #26
Krazeh
Mod Master
 
Krazeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2,091
Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walle View Post
It is the homosexuals that are imposing themselves onto an institution whose values and beliefs they do not share. I (and others) are not imposing ourselves onto them, and despite this homosexuals are the ones accusing heterosexuals for bigotry, .... out of here.
Who said that gay people who want to get married don't share the same values and beliefs (with respect to marriage) as straight people? Aside from considering marriage to be an union between two people, rather than an union between a man and a woman, I'm not seeing how the two things differ.
__________________
"My name is don don
I am pretty elephant
Love me well!"
Krazeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 13:58   #27
hyperion
Hypermodder
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 697
hyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyanhyperion is a Super Spamming Saiyan
@Walle
You're persistently laying claim to the definition of marriage. Your argument is that "it's been like this for a long time". Nexxo gave examples of cultures where the custom wasn't bound by the limitations you claim. You reiterate that "it's been like this for a long time". News flash, society evolves, customs change and gay marriages are already a reality. "It's been like this for a long time" doesn't mean it will be like this forever and ever.

So if marriage is only between a man and a woman, what are all the gay marriages until now? If you say that they're not same-sex then you're denying reality. If you don't acknowledge them as marriages then you're imposing your views on other people's lives.
hyperion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 13:59   #28
Nexxo
Whatever's Geek.
 
Nexxo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 31,304
Nexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming Saiyan
Quote:
Originally Posted by walle View Post
I think our societies and cultures have sufficiently demonstrated that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, Nexxo, that it is an intrinsic part of the fabric of our cultures too, furthermore, that it has been the definition for the past (insert amount) of years. And as I said: The homosexuals are imposing themselves onto an institution whose values and beliefs they do not share. Afterwards they proceed to complain when the peoples whose values and beliefs they do not share react negatively to them imposing themselves onto said institution, that is to say: marriage.

I don't have any issues with a legal framework that would give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married, that's not the issue at hand here.
You can do the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly that you cannot hear me, but my previous posts have given ample factual data that indicates that you are wrong in that assumption.

As for homosexuals imposing themselves into an institution whose beliefs and values they do not share: that's a bit like saying that atheists have no morals. They may not share your definitions of marriage, but that doesn't mean they have not got one of their own that is equally valid. Again: you don't get to define what marriage is for everybody else.
__________________
In memory of Kidmod-Southpaw (1997 - 2014), Teelzebub (1955 - 2016) and Waynio (1978 - 2016)

"We are the music makers; we are the dreamers of dreams"


Current project: Metaversa 02 Ada.
Nexxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:01   #29
sonicgroove
Radical Atheist
 
sonicgroove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Waterfoot
Posts: 1,979
sonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyan
The one and only reason religious opposition exists, is because 'it says it's wrong in the bible' This would be fine if religious people followed the word of the bible, but they don't...none of them....yes, you read that right, not one of them. If you are religious, you are, by definition, a hypocrite. I could pull a hundred examples of why you are a hypocrite, but to be honest, you probably know them, but choose to ignore them, because you are a hypocrite, so I don't see the point in quoting them here for you to ignore them again.

Opposition to gay marriage is just plain small minded HUMAN bigotry, that is all. You can hide behind a book that bears no resemblance to the original scriptures (not that they were true anyway) if you like, but when it comes down to it, the only thing you have is hypocrisy to fall back on.

It's funny, but nowhere in the new testament does Jesus even mention Gays. You'd think, if he had an opinion either way on the subject, he would have dedicated at least a line to the subject, no?
sonicgroove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:03   #30
walle
I *am* a Dremel
 
walle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,533
walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperion View Post
News flash, society evolves, customs change and gay marriages are already a reality. "It's been like this for a long time" doesn't mean it will be like this forever and ever.
News flash, our societies and cultures evolved from previous definition and social construct, if you want to argue for hitting reverse you're entitled to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo View Post
You can do the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly that you cannot hear me, but my previous posts have given ample factual data that indicates that you are wrong in that assumption.
Likewise Nexxo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo View Post
You don't get to define what marriage is for everybody else..
Ah the irony. That said, I would respect them more if they extended the same courtesy.
__________________
"Freedom of speech can't have "should include this" or "shouldn't include this" - it is an absolute." -- specofdust
"Once rights are gone, they almost never come back." -- eddie_dane

Last edited by walle; 5th Mar 2014 at 14:10.
walle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:07   #31
longweight
Possibly Longbeard.
 
longweight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Posts: 10,517
longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walle View Post
News flash, our societies and cultures evolved from previous definition and social construct, if you want to argue for hitting reverse you're entitled to do so.
We want to hit play, you seem to want the system to stay on pause.
longweight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:16   #32
walle
I *am* a Dremel
 
walle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,533
walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.walle is definitely a rep cheat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by longweight View Post
We want to hit play, you seem to want the system to stay on pause.
I like what marriage represents, the union between a man and a woman. I see no need to change it for the sake of changing it, and certainly nor for reasons of accommodating a minority group who has set themselves out to attack the institution and those who share the values and beliefs they can't identify themselves with.

Again: "I don't have any issues with a legal framework that would give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married, that's not the issue at hand here."
__________________
"Freedom of speech can't have "should include this" or "shouldn't include this" - it is an absolute." -- specofdust
"Once rights are gone, they almost never come back." -- eddie_dane
walle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:18   #33
sonicgroove
Radical Atheist
 
sonicgroove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Waterfoot
Posts: 1,979
sonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyansonicgroove is a Super Spamming Saiyan
Walle.....Does your mother, wife or sister wear trousers ever? If so, she is an ABOMINATION in the eyes of god. Much the same way a man who lies with a man, or someone who wears mixed fibre clothing, or someone who eats shellfish. How do you distinguish between these examples? The bible doesn't.
sonicgroove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:18   #34
Nexxo
Whatever's Geek.
 
Nexxo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 31,304
Nexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming Saiyan
Quote:
Originally Posted by walle View Post
News flash, our societies and cultures evolved from previous definition and social construct, if you want to argue for hitting reverse you're entitled to do so.
What is reverse for some, is forward for others. Just look at the traffic in the opposite lane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by walle View Post
Ah the irony. That said, I would respect them more if they extended the same courtesy.
They are; you're not. They are not messing about with your right to marry who you want; you are messing with their right to do so.
__________________
In memory of Kidmod-Southpaw (1997 - 2014), Teelzebub (1955 - 2016) and Waynio (1978 - 2016)

"We are the music makers; we are the dreamers of dreams"


Current project: Metaversa 02 Ada.
Nexxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:18   #35
Krazeh
Mod Master
 
Krazeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2,091
Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.Krazeh is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walle View Post
I like what marriage represents, I see no need to change it for the sake of changing it, and certainly nor for reasons of accommodating a minority group who has set themselves out to attack the institution and those who share the values and beliefs they can't identify themselves with.
How are they attacking the institution? How do they not share the values and beliefs of marriage? As far as I'm aware the only thing that really differs is whether marriage is defined as between two people or between a man and a woman (which to be honest is probably the least important bit of marriage). Other than that I don't see how the values and beliefs aren't shared...
__________________
"My name is don don
I am pretty elephant
Love me well!"
Krazeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:26   #36
Nexxo
Whatever's Geek.
 
Nexxo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 31,304
Nexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming SaiyanNexxo is a Super Spamming Saiyan
Yes, Walle, please tell us how a same sex couple getting married threatens what marriage represents to you.
__________________
In memory of Kidmod-Southpaw (1997 - 2014), Teelzebub (1955 - 2016) and Waynio (1978 - 2016)

"We are the music makers; we are the dreamers of dreams"


Current project: Metaversa 02 Ada.
Nexxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:36   #37
Corky42
What did walle eat for breakfast?
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 6,894
Corky42 is a Super Spamming SaiyanCorky42 is a Super Spamming SaiyanCorky42 is a Super Spamming SaiyanCorky42 is a Super Spamming SaiyanCorky42 is a Super Spamming SaiyanCorky42 is a Super Spamming SaiyanCorky42 is a Super Spamming SaiyanCorky42 is a Super Spamming SaiyanCorky42 is a Super Spamming SaiyanCorky42 is a Super Spamming SaiyanCorky42 is a Super Spamming Saiyan
Quote:
Originally Posted by walle View Post
Again: "I don't have any issues with a legal framework that would give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married, that's not the issue at hand here."
Is it not ?

From what i have read everyone seems to be either for or against homosexual couples being able to be married, versus a civil partnership. And AFAIK one of the main reasons they want to be married instead of a civil partnership, is because the two are not equal in the legal rights afforded to them.
Is it not the politicians that have applied pressure to the institutions that perform marriage to include homosexual couples, because changing the law on civil partnership to afford the same rights as marriage comes with other complications.
Corky42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:39   #38
longweight
Possibly Longbeard.
 
longweight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Posts: 10,517
longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.longweight is definitely a rep cheat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walle View Post
I like what marriage represents, the union between a man and a woman. I see no need to change it for the sake of changing it, and certainly nor for reasons of accommodating a minority group who has set themselves out to attack the institution and those who share the values and beliefs they can't identify themselves with.
Ah ok, there is no point to continuing this discussion with you.
longweight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:47   #39
Shirty
Time travelling rogue
Moderator
 
Shirty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1982
Location: A hole
Posts: 11,685
Shirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, ShirtyShirty is, simply, Shirty
Going with very iffy statistics here, but if 20% of the UK's population is CofE, then are they not a minority as well? Epecially consider that only 2 in ten of them even visit a church regularly.

Better tax breaks than being gay though I suppose.
__________________
6700K | Z170I | Liqtech 120X | EVGA GTX 980Ti SC | 16GB | 1TB M550 | Node 304 | SS-460FL2 (fanless) | Dell S2740L | Ducky TKL | Logitech G500

I also have a Surface Pro 2, even though I'm not a pro...

Last edited by Shirty; 5th Mar 2014 at 14:54.
Shirty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:48   #40
supermonkey
Deal with it
 
supermonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,955
supermonkey is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.supermonkey is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.supermonkey is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.supermonkey is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.supermonkey is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.supermonkey is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.supermonkey is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.supermonkey is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.supermonkey is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.supermonkey is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.supermonkey is the Cheesecake. Relix smiles down upon them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo View Post
You already have the right to turn away business. You don't need a law for that --or if you do, it can simply be: the right to turn away business, for any reason; religion does not have to be dragged into it.
I agree with this in principle. If businesses are to be given legal protection to turn away custom, they should have the ability to do so for any reason at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo View Post
The problem with Arizona's bill however would have been twofold. One is that it extends to vital or essential services. Church hospitals could turn away patients on religious grounds. A police officer would have the right not to serve gay members of the public. The second is illustrated by landlords, and restaurant owners hanging up the "No Blacks" sign again. While this may seem a businessman exercising his right to turn away business based on personal beliefs, it is not just about business and personal beliefs. This law would constitute state-sanctioned discrimination --back to the good ol' days of segregation. Is that really where the US wants to be going again?
I agree with you here as well. In my post above, I tried to make that distinction by specifically mentioning private businesses. Hospitals, police, and other public functions would not have the same protections. And this is where things get murky, and why ultimately I oppose the Arizona law. Some hospitals are run as private businesses, and churches are given certain tax exemtpions (which in my opinion makes them not entirely a private organization). While legislators might have had good intentions, it would no doubt end up a confused mess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aterius Gmork View Post
This is exactly what I meant by the quote above. Two People should be (and mostly are) able to live together and have that recognized by the state, gain all the legal rights and obligations etc.

However I cannot see what homosexuals wish to gain when they demand to be married by a Christian church as the bible condemns homosexuality itself (First Corinthias 6:9, Romans 1:26-27 src: google). Why should a Religion have to act against its' own believes?
At least here in the US, gay couples aren't really fighting to get married in churches. All they want is the right to get married like everyone else, and for the marriages to retain all of the legal protections as heterosexual unions (e.g. tax benefits, retirements benefits, court privilege, hospital rights, etc.).
__________________
But of bliss and of glad life there is little to be said, before it ends; as works fair and wonderful, while still they endure for eyes to see, are their own record, and only when they are in peril or broken for ever do they pass into song.
-J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion
supermonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38.
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.