Being Tolerant Oppresses Christians

[bushwacked]

Tonorator's silly comparisons are getting whacked around by people from both sides of the political spectrum.

[tonorator]

Face it, for yer own religious reasons (and possibly yer own repressed man-love), you think that two consenting American adults of opposite genders should receive legal benefits from the government that two consenting American adults of the same gender should not recieve. That is gender based bigotry. And it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. That is why the kookoo bird fundies need a Constitutional amendment to outlaw ghay marriage.

 

 

1413718[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

there is a ton of research that demonstrates that children are best served by having their biological mother and father as part of their life in a single family setting. do you ignore this data when deciding what is best for society?

 

inheritance rights? that is the only thing stopping polygamy? so do you support polygamy or not support it due to inheritance rights? this can't be something that we couldn't overcome ... we can't handle inheritance rights with traditional families at times, so why should polygamy be any different?

 

if medical issues stop people from getting together, are you supportive of stopping people from getting married if gene therapy determines that they have a high likelihood of producing defective kids? are distant cousins ok? what if they don't want to have kids, and are consenting?

 

what if i consent to let you kill me? would you use that as your defense? are we really saying that as long as adults consent, then we as a society should protect?

[Ursa Majoris]

my point is that what you describe above is deviant.  we have defined it as such and put in laws to prevent it.  i'm sure if someone was having sex with a horse that was apparently consenting, we would have the cops out to haul the person away.  we have classified that as deviant.  we will not allow someone with multiple sex partners to create a legal bond of marriage with all of them, because we have ruled this out as deviant, unwanted behavior ... even if all adults consent.  if a consenting brother and sister wanted to get married, it would be stopped.  we have standards of decency and we build these into our laws.  not all of them are for the protection of the innocent.  my point is that all of these people could take the stance that "we were born this way."  so, if this excuse is permitted for homosexuals, why not for all of these cases?  why not be "tolerant" of all of this kind of behavior, because it is out of the control of the individual?

 

1413688[/snapback]

 

 

 

To take them one by one....

 

Homosexuality - two consenting adults, that can in no way damage society at large.

Pedophilia - preys on children, clearly intolerable in any socirty.

Bestiality - animal cruelty, clearly intolerable in any civilized society.

Polygamy - outlawed because of the damage done if it is widespread, destroying the natural numerical balance.

Incest - outlawed because of the genetic issues with inbreeding.

 

All the above, except homosexuality have good reason to be outlawed. You cannot draw a parallel between homosexuals and any of the others. It is this misleading argument that is used by the anti-gay marriage brigade.

[Squeegiebo]

I agree with the caveat that if GIT  accepts state or federal subsidy or is part of the state university system, then in effect they become agents of the state and do not have the same rights as a private entity.

 

1413720[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If a state actor, then the 1st Amendment applies to them.

[skins]

there is a ton of research that demonstrates that children are best served by having their biological mother and father  as part of their life in a single family setting.  do you ignore this data when deciding what is best for society?

 

inheritance rights?  that is the only thing stopping polygamy?  so do you support polygamy or not support it due to inheritance rights?  this can't be something that we couldn't overcome ... we can't handle inheritance rights with traditional families at times, so why should polygamy be any different?

 

if medical issues stop people from getting together, are you supportive of stopping people from getting married if gene therapy determines that they have a high likelihood of producing defective kids?  are distant cousins ok?  what if they don't want to have kids, and are consenting?

 

what if i consent to let you kill me?  would you use that as your defense?  are we really saying that as long as adults consent, then we as a society should protect?

 

1413742[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I said "inheritence rights, etc.". There are a lot more legal issues involved with allowing a polygamous marriage contract.

 

Yer sort of babbling now. Name one reason besides yer made up Republican Man on Dog fantasies for not granting the legal rights (e.g. over 1000 federal tax benefits to married couples) of a marriage contract to two consenting American adults of the same gender that we grant to two consenting American adults of opposite genders.

 

You will not do it because you cant. There is no reason other yer personal religious beliefs which you want to have dictate our societies legal relationships because it makes you feel better for some reason.

 

Remember, we are only talking about a legal relationship, and you can do whatever you want in yer own church.

[Chavez]

there is a ton of research that demonstrates that children are best served by having their biological mother and father  as part of their life in a single family setting.  do you ignore this data when deciding what is best for society?

Obviously, we should make divorce illegal then, and mandate marriage for anyone two people who have children together.

if medical issues stop people from getting together, are you supportive of stopping people from getting married if gene therapy determines that they have a high likelihood of producing defective kids?  are distant cousins ok?  what if they don't want to have kids, and are consenting?

I think the law is 2nd cousins and further can be married. So you don't even have to be that distant a cousin.

what if i consent to let you kill me?  would you use that as your defense?  are we really saying that as long as adults consent, then we as a society should protect?

 

1413742[/snapback]

 

 

 

Last I looked murder was a whole different ball of wax from sex and/or marriage.

[tonorator]

Polygamy - outlawed because of the damage done if it is widespread, destroying the natural numerical balance.

1413743[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

the natural numerical balance?

 

all of the arguments for homosexual marriage either say "let them do it and be together because they were born that way" or "they are consenting adults, so leave them alone." both of these arguments have major faults, which is my point. according to the first, we should then tolerate any kind of behavior because the person was born that way. with the second, then we should support and legalize any type of behavior where the adults consent.

 

my point is that there is a higher order, one ordained by God, that like it or not, is the basis for many of our laws. it is the basis for the freedoms we all enjoy that our founding fathers created for us. "Ordained by our Creator." "In God We Trust." "One Nation Under God." it is the fabric of our society.

 

it is vogue and fashionable to casually throw off these things and support people doing whatever they want, as long as they think it is OK. most of the troubling cases we have with kids today is that they had no family that cared, lacked the influence of two caring parents, was the result of parent who put their own consenting needs above the needs of others, and generally had no sense of honor, duty, and doing what is right. not what they consented to, but what is right.

 

so casually speak about destroying these things and wearing your "it's OK as long as you consent" t-shirts, but don't kid yourself into thinking that you are doing no harm to the society in which you live.

[tonorator]

You will not do it because you cant. There is no reason other yer personal religious beliefs which you want to have dictate our societies legal relationships because it makes you feel better for some reason.

 

 

1413759[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

the country you live in that gives you the right to speak freely is the result of religious beliefs. our society, constitution, structure, and laws were created by Godly men who looked to reflect a society ordained by God. it is so fundamental to your life that you don't even realize it. the stability of our society depends on it. stability that you take for granted.

 

you haven't named any valid reason to outlaw polygamy.

[Chavez]

all of the arguments for homosexual marriage either say "let them do it and be together because they were born that way" or "they are consenting adults, so leave them alone."  both of these arguments have major faults, which is my point.  according to the first, we should then tolerate any kind of behavior because the person was born that way.  with the second, then we should support and legalize any type of behavior where the adults consent.

See, the beauty is when you combine BOTH arguments, ya get a beautiful Reese's Peanut Butter Cup of sensible public policy.

my point is that there is a higher order, one ordained by God, that like it or not, is the basis for many of our laws.  it is the basis for the freedoms we all enjoy that our founding fathers created for us.  "Ordained by our Creator."  "In God We Trust."  "One Nation Under God."  it is the fabric of our society.

"In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" were added to money and the pledge, respectively, by Ike in 1950 to differentiate us from the Godless commies.

 

As for "the higher order ordained by God" I think you'll find that many of the "Christian" values are either common-sense law that ANY civilization must have in place to continue (don't steal, don't kill, don't pork your neighbor's wife, etc) or at the very least have precedents in other religions.

it is vogue and fashionable to casually throw off these things and support people doing whatever they want, as long as they think it is OK.  most of the troubling cases we have with kids today is that they had no family that cared, lacked the influence of two caring parents, was the result of parent who put their own consenting needs above the needs of others, and generally had no sense of honor, duty, and doing what is right.  not what they consented to, but what is right.

 

so casually speak about destroying these things and wearing your "it's OK as long as you consent" t-shirts, but don't kid yourself into thinking that you are doing no harm to the society in which you live.

 

1413775[/snapback]

 

 

 

In short: tonorator is probably not much fun to party with.

Edited April 10, 2006 by Chavez

[Chavez]

the country you live in that gives you the right to speak freely is the result of religious beliefs.  our society, constitution, structure, and laws were created by Godly men who looked to reflect a society ordained by God.  it is so fundamental to your life that you don't even realize it.  the stability of our society depends on it.  stability that you take for granted.

 

you haven't named any valid reason to outlaw polygamy.

 

1413779[/snapback]

 

 

 

Yeah, the same religion that persecuted Galileo and performed the Inquisition LOVED free speech. That's rich.

[tonorator]

In short: tonorator is probably not much fun to party with. 

 

1413783[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

oh believe me, i'm not holier than thou.

[skins]

the natural numerical balance?  

 

all of the arguments for homosexual marriage either say "let them do it and be together because they were born that way" or "they are consenting adults, so leave them alone."  both of these arguments have major faults, which is my point.  according to the first, we should then tolerate any kind of behavior because the person was born that way.  with the second, then we should support and legalize any type of behavior where the adults consent.

 

my point is that there is a higher order, one ordained by God, that like it or not, is the basis for many of our laws.  it is the basis for the freedoms we all enjoy that our founding fathers created for us.  "Ordained by our Creator."  "In God We Trust."  "One Nation Under God."  it is the fabric of our society.

 

it is vogue and fashionable to casually throw off these things and support people doing whatever they want, as long as they think it is OK.  most of the troubling cases we have with kids today is that they had no family that cared, lacked the influence of two caring parents, was the result of parent who put their own consenting needs above the needs of others, and generally had no sense of honor, duty, and doing what is right.  not what they consented to, but what is right.

 

so casually speak about destroying these things and wearing your "it's OK as long as you consent" t-shirts, but don't kid yourself into thinking that you are doing no harm to the society in which you live.

 

1413775[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Let's start with the basics because yer missing the entire point of the argument for why gay people should be allowed to marry:

 

It isnt about whether they are born that way. It isnt about legalizing any type of behavior between adults where they consent (although I must say, as a libertarian, I lean that way myself). It is about the fact that we grant numerous benefits and rights to American married couples of opposite genders that we refuse to grant to others. We recognize the contractual marriage relationship under the law only if the adults are of opposite gender (think Brittany Spears and that goofball she married for 18 hours) that we dont grant to people of the same sex.

 

That is unconstitutional.

 

There is no higher order or Gods law forming the basis of our laws. The Constitution of the United States is the law in this country, and it's only reference to religion at all is to guarantee freedom of religion and to order that religion stay out of government. There is no reference to God in the Constitution. Religion is not the "fabric of our society." Enlightenment principles of justice, tolerance, individual freedoms, rule of law and democracy are the fabric and foundation of our society.

 

Yer talking about a fantasy land that never existed and does not now.

 

And all yer talk about the change in families over the last few decades is certainly troubling, but it has nothing to do with gay marriage. And gay marriage doesnt destroy anything. It extends legal benefits to Americans who were previously discriminated against based on their gender.

Edited April 10, 2006 by skins

[tonorator]

Yeah, the same religion that persecuted Galileo and performed the Inquisition LOVED free speech. That's rich.

 

1413785[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

religious beliefs ... not religion.

 

take it back to jesus. he's the example. as said before, he didn't persecute, he didn't judge, he didn't condemn. he taught. he healed. he set and example. i fall way way way way short of his example, but i offer to you that no finer example of how to live a life has ever been known. those that truly follow his teachings and accept him as the son of God are/were not the ones doing what you say above.

 

christianity is really quite a beautiful, graceful thing. what an incredible shame that it is treated with such carelessness and misinterpretation. those that are clearly not in line with christ's teachings who claim to act under the guise of "religion" are scorned as much by christians as they are by everyone else. unfortunately, it has become perceived as open-minded to go along with the scorning of the entire faith vs. the misguided individuals.

[tonorator]

Let's start with the basics because yer missing the entire point of the argument for why gay people should be allowed to marry:

 

It isnt about whether they are born that way. It isnt about legalizing any type of behavior between adults where they consent (although I must say, as a libertarian, I lean that way myself). It is about the fact that we grant numerous benefits and rights to American married couples of opposite genders that we refuse to grant to others. We recognize the contractual marriage relationship under the law only if the adults are of opposite gender (think Brittany Spears and that goofball she married for 18 hours) that we dont grant to people of the same sex. 

 

That is unconstitutional.

 

There is no higher order or Gods law forming the basis of our laws. The Constitution of the United States is the law in this country, and it's only reference to religion at all is to guarantee freedom of religion and to order that religion stay out of government. There is no reference to God in the Constitution. Religion is not the "fabric of our society." Enlightenment principles of justice, tolerance, individual freedoms, rule of law and democracy are the fabric and foundation of our society.

 

Yer talking about a fantasy land that never existed and does not now.

 

And all yer talk about the change in families over the last few decades is certainly troubling, but it has nothing to do with gay marriage. And gay marriage doesnt destroy anything. It extends legal benefits to Americans who were previously discriminated against based on their gender.

 

1413793[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

britney is still married to the dude, i think. they have a kid.

 

marriage = the union of a man and a woman. that is the definition of the word. to jump up and claim that the rights and benefits associated with it should be extended beyond this definition should not then be exclusively granted for same sexes. my point is that the rights and benes could then be argued for by any two or group of people.

 

all of the change in families does have to do with the devaluing of the sacredness and importance of the marriage of a man and a woman. it is their love and stability that best serves the needs a new life. extending the definition of marriage to the same sex is consistent with the entire trend of bucking what is right and going with what we think feels right. with no structure to how we SHOULD be (which i believe comes from God), we are left with doing what feels good. if you have no higher ideas to aspire to, then you do have a society that lets decency fly out the window.

 

and to be clear. i ain't no saint here. i wish i lived a life as high and mighty as i can type, but i don't. i'm a sinner just like everyone else, praying for forgiveness and guidance. i won't relinquish the ideas i hold sacred, however, and those are higher than what we decide with our temporary life span on this earth.

[Chavez]

britney is still married to the dude, i think.  they have a kid.

No, that's a different guy.

 

 

all of the change in families does have to do with the devaluing of the sacredness and importance of the marriage of a man and a woman.  it is their love and stability that best serves the needs a new life.  extending the definition of marriage to the same sex is consistent with the entire trend of bucking what is right and going with what we think feels right.  with no structure to how we SHOULD be (which i believe comes from God), we are left with doing what feels good.  if you have no higher ideas to aspire to, then you do have a society that lets decency fly out the window.

 

1413827[/snapback]

 

 

 

I would have to respectfully disagree on this - for one, I think we breeders have had enough time to screw up marriage, what with the high rates of divorce, adultery, spousal/child abuse, and the ever-popular long-simmering resentment which lead to staying together out of spite.

 

I don't regard the "sacredness" of marriage to come from the man-woman dynamic but from the person-person dynamic - the desire to be joined with someone for the rest of your life. The prospect of two people being willing to make that sort of commitment completely blows my mind, and I think any two consenting adults willing to do so should be fully supported, regardless of what a nice handbook to life filled with great stories, some historical, some apocryphal, some metaphorical, says about it.

[skins]

britney is still married to the dude, i think.  they have a kid.

 

marriage = the union of a man and a woman.  that is the definition of the word.  to jump up and claim that the rights and benefits associated with it should be extended beyond this definition should not then be exclusively granted for same sexes.  my point is that the rights and benes could then be argued for by any two or group of people.

 

all of the change in families does have to do with the devaluing of the sacredness and importance of the marriage of a man and a woman.  it is their love and stability that best serves the needs a new life.  extending the definition of marriage to the same sex is consistent with the entire trend of bucking what is right and going with what we think feels right.  with no structure to how we SHOULD be (which i believe comes from God), we are left with doing what feels good.  if you have no higher ideas to aspire to, then you do have a society that lets decency fly out the window.

 

and to be clear.  i ain't no saint here.  i wish i lived a life as high and mighty as i can type, but i don't.  i'm a sinner just like everyone else, praying for forgiveness and guidance.  i won't relinquish the ideas i hold sacred, however, and those are higher than what we decide with our temporary life span on this earth.

 

1413827[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Um, Brittany is not married to the guy. They married in Vegas and then divorced within one day. She is married to a new goofball now.

 

Marriage may mean the "union of a man and a woman" to you personally, but legally, in this country, it is a contractual legal relationship. All that feel good stuff aside, until you understand that, this is pointless.

 

What would you say if the US government and all the state governments did away with the word marriage in the law and made all former marriages into "Civil Unions" and extended the benefits of Civil Union to any consenting adult couple who agreed to be bound by the legal obligations of Civil Union and would then get the legal rights and benefits? And the only "marriages" were personal things conducted in churches which had no legal weight but were done in conjunction with the government recognizing the Civil Union.

 

That is what Martin Luther did back in the day and what most of Europe does now. Would that be an assault on the precious word marriage?

Edited April 10, 2006 by skins

[godtomsatan]

sure you do.  same thing with sex with multiple partners and needing to have multiple wives/husbands.  so is a predisposition to group sex.  all of these could be classified as "born with" natures of which we should all be tolerant.

 

the fact is, we are not tolerant of these things, so we have constructed a society to be specifically intolerant of certain kinds of behavior.  based on this, homosexuals cannot use the "we were born this way" defense.  if so, murderers could use the same defense.

 

you could use the "consenting adults" avenue if you like (which doesn't help those who were born to have multiple partners), which is a far different argument than the "we were born this way."  go with that one, and you open a big can or worms.

 

no can of worms is open with "born this way" when you talk about race/gender.  they are what they are.

 

1413678[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

What bothers you so much about who other people have sex with?

[tonorator]

Um, Brittany is not married to the guy. They married in Vegas and then divorced within one day. She is married to a new goofball now.

 

That is what Martin Luther did back in the day and what most of Europe does now. Would that be an assault on the precious word marriage?

 

1413845[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

it is a precious thing, despite how britney treats it ...

 

if you are asking me if civil unions are better than marriage, i say no, of course. i happen to like that our laws are in line with my beliefs and enjoy the privilege of being able to try and defend that. and marriage is indeed a man and a woman - what we are trying to do is alter this definition. if it did not mean a man and a woman, there would be no debate and men could marry other men. so it is not just a legal contract between two people as you say, it is a legal contract between and man and a woman, and that is under fire and in some states, the battle has been lost.

 

personally, it means much more to me than a legal contract. and despite the divorce rate, spousal abuse, etc., marriage is still the best thing we have going to raise kids and have a healthy society. our efforts should be to strengthen marriages vs. relax the definition. it should mean much more than a legal contract and it has a higher meaning than any law could every dictate.

 

yes, i believe it is a precious thing. you got that right.

[godtomsatan]

all of the change in families does have to do with the devaluing of the sacredness and importance of the marriage of a man and a woman. 

 

1413827[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

then why do more than half of all (hetero) marriages end in divorce?

[tonorator]

What bothers you so much about who other people have sex with?

 

1413866[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

free love satan!

 

 

sheesh.

[Chavez]

What bothers you so much about who other people have sex with?

 

1413866[/snapback]

 

 

 

Who other people have sex with USED to bother me until I started gettin' it on a regular basis myself.

[tonorator]

then why do more than half of all (hetero) marriages end in divorce?

 

1413869[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

because we have lost the notion of having a society that supports the institution and encourages us to act on what satisfies our own immediate interests/desires. we are failing to put the needs of our children before our own to honestly work on keeping our marriages healthy. we are neglecting the most important thing that we can do with this life, which is to create more life and nurture it with all of our energies. we are failing to take into account what marriage truly means before we move into it, treating it like any other fad that happens to satisfy our current fancy. we are treating ourselves like mini-Gods who have the right to decide what is best for ourselves vs. submit to a greater good and the notion of consequence. do i really have to go on here?

[bushwacked]

do i really have to go on here?

 

1413877[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

No thank you Mr. Robertson.

[Chavez]

because we have lost the notion of having a society that supports the institution and encourages us to act on what satisfies our own immediate interests/desires.  we are failing to put the needs of our children before our own to honestly work on keeping our marriages healthy.  we are neglecting the most important thing that we can do with this life, which is to create more life and nurture it with all of our energies.  we are failing to take into account what marriage truly means before we move into it, treating it like any other fad that happens to satisfy our current fancy. 

This I would whole-heartedly agree on (see, we heathens aren't ALL bad, plus we don't crowd up Heaven for you believers)

 

we are treating ourselves like mini-Gods who have the right to decide what is best for ourselves vs. submit to a greater good and the notion of consequence.  do i really have to go on here?

 

1413877[/snapback]

 

 

 

......kinda lost me........

[The Irish Doggy]

:finishespopcorn:

 

:willbebacklater: