Dempublicents1
24-10-2006, 00:57
No, not at all.
Stickers like "dont let the niggers marry" and "dont let the god damned faggots marry" (which is the point of all 'protect marriage' vomit) demonstrate a degenerate character. The NAACP is not an organization devoted to hating and oppressing people, and 'race doesnt matter' does not promote hate or oppression either.
Belief that gay marriage is a 'threat to marriage' is stupid, there are no two ways around that fact.
A person who believs it is giving evidence that he isnt a very competent thinker, and as I wrote in my post, I would neither trust nor employ such a person on those grounds.
And much of that is your opinion, which you are welcome to.
Of course, there are those who would think any person who associated freely with "niggers" was obviously not a competent thinker or was of poor character. There are those who think "fags" are of poor character and anyone who intentionally supports them are as well.
If you can fire someone based on your idea of what constitutes stupid beliefs and the character of a person, then you have no logical reason to deny someone the right to enforce their own opinions in that way, even if you disagree with the opinion under discussion.
actually, it does. it forces those who believe Same Sex Marriage to be a grave sin to accept it into their lives. something you may not understand, but it does infringe on their freedom of Religion.
By the exact same logic, having a baptist church on the corner infringes upon a Muslim's freedom of religion, since they have to live in the same world as people who do not worship the same way.
And the only thing you could possibly mean by "accept into their lives," is "have in the same world with them," since no law is going to force anyone to be ok with same-sex marriage.
In the end, no, stopping someone from enforcing their religion upon others does not infringe on their freedom of religion. In fact, it is the person trying to enforce their own religious beliefs who is trying to infringe upon religion. Thus, so long as same-sex marriage is illegal simply because of the religious beliefs of some, the religious freedoms of those who disagree are being infringed upon.
yeah I don't get that one either. seems like a real stretch... it's like saying that allowing there to be multiple religions in the US forces Christians to accept satanism into their lives and is against their freedom of religion.
it seems more sensible to say that forcing a Christian idea of what marriage is supposed to be on ALL people in the US or within a particular US state is truely against others freedom of religion (or perhaps freedom from religion, as noone should be forced to live by Christian ideals in a secular nation)
Precisely.
well, for voting, we require a Photo ID. Drivers licen etc.
Some places do. Others do not. Up until the current election, you could vote in my state with a SS card and an up-to-date utility bill.
so you do think that if the LAW does not mention it SPECIFICALLY, it's not covered and thus not connected?
If it isn't outlawed, it isn't outlawed. That's pretty plain. It might be vaguely connected, it might not.
But the fact remains that quite a few sins, especially in the eyes of a fundamentalist Christian, are perfectly legal - and often practiced by said "Christians." But they pick the ones they think only affect other people to battle.
Funny, all three of your definitions define it as Archaic and especially when it's exhorbitant... and some religions do allow the use of Usury.
Of course it is archaic. Nobody cares whether or not interest is charged anymore. The entire global economy runs off of interest. Most people can't imagine a world in which it *wasn't* present.
Meanwhile, some religions do allow for usury, but that is irrelevant. We were specifically talking about Christians who think they can pick a few "sins" and try to legislate against them while ignoring all the rest.
and that it is their views on the matter. thus others are "shoving" and idea/concept that they find just as repugnant as some find the arguments against Same Sex Marriage, "Down their throats" basically, I'm tired of people saying [Religion of the day] is being "Shoved down [my] throat" like they are not doing the same to them. Argue your posistion, ok. try to convince the other, fine. but to sit back and complain about pushing and shoving is just being as hypocritical as those they label.
Not at all. When I point out that the only reason for banning same-sex marriage is, "My religion says so," and that this reason is inappropriate because it is forcing other peoples' religions down my throat, I am not forcing anything down anyone's throat in return. I am not asking the person in question to support same-sex marriage. I'm not asking them to perform it in their churches. I'm not asking them to like it or accept it or consider any same-sex couples married by their religious views. All I am doing is preventing them from forcing their religioin upon others.
Suppose a group of Muslims wanted to ban all alcohol and pork from being sold in the US. If I said, "Not eating pork is fine for you, but your religion has no place in the law of this country and I"ll eat all the pork I want, thank you very much," would that be forcing pork down a Muslim's throat?
The difference is simple. Those who wish to enforce religion upon others are trying to force someone else to live their lives a certain way. Those who do not, on the other hand, are simply saying, "You aren't forcing me to do anything. Live your life your own way, and I'll live mine." The second option isn't forcing anything down anyone's throat, because it allows everyone to live as they wish to live, so long as they don't infringe upon that right in others. The people who are anti-homosexual can go on disapproving, punishing their kids for being gay, thinking that same-sex couples are really married, refusing to perform same-sex marriage, etc. All they *don't* get to do, is force those decisions on others.
and what is done in the privacy of one's home isn't the point for Same Sex Marriage.
Of course it is. There are those who wish to deny equal protection under the law to people based on the gender of the person they happen to sleep with.
neither is it the Legal status of being Married (since many say Civil Unions won't satisfy them.)
Civil unions don't grant all of the legal status of being married.
Stickers like "dont let the niggers marry" and "dont let the god damned faggots marry" (which is the point of all 'protect marriage' vomit) demonstrate a degenerate character. The NAACP is not an organization devoted to hating and oppressing people, and 'race doesnt matter' does not promote hate or oppression either.
Belief that gay marriage is a 'threat to marriage' is stupid, there are no two ways around that fact.
A person who believs it is giving evidence that he isnt a very competent thinker, and as I wrote in my post, I would neither trust nor employ such a person on those grounds.
And much of that is your opinion, which you are welcome to.
Of course, there are those who would think any person who associated freely with "niggers" was obviously not a competent thinker or was of poor character. There are those who think "fags" are of poor character and anyone who intentionally supports them are as well.
If you can fire someone based on your idea of what constitutes stupid beliefs and the character of a person, then you have no logical reason to deny someone the right to enforce their own opinions in that way, even if you disagree with the opinion under discussion.
actually, it does. it forces those who believe Same Sex Marriage to be a grave sin to accept it into their lives. something you may not understand, but it does infringe on their freedom of Religion.
By the exact same logic, having a baptist church on the corner infringes upon a Muslim's freedom of religion, since they have to live in the same world as people who do not worship the same way.
And the only thing you could possibly mean by "accept into their lives," is "have in the same world with them," since no law is going to force anyone to be ok with same-sex marriage.
In the end, no, stopping someone from enforcing their religion upon others does not infringe on their freedom of religion. In fact, it is the person trying to enforce their own religious beliefs who is trying to infringe upon religion. Thus, so long as same-sex marriage is illegal simply because of the religious beliefs of some, the religious freedoms of those who disagree are being infringed upon.
yeah I don't get that one either. seems like a real stretch... it's like saying that allowing there to be multiple religions in the US forces Christians to accept satanism into their lives and is against their freedom of religion.
it seems more sensible to say that forcing a Christian idea of what marriage is supposed to be on ALL people in the US or within a particular US state is truely against others freedom of religion (or perhaps freedom from religion, as noone should be forced to live by Christian ideals in a secular nation)
Precisely.
well, for voting, we require a Photo ID. Drivers licen etc.
Some places do. Others do not. Up until the current election, you could vote in my state with a SS card and an up-to-date utility bill.
so you do think that if the LAW does not mention it SPECIFICALLY, it's not covered and thus not connected?
If it isn't outlawed, it isn't outlawed. That's pretty plain. It might be vaguely connected, it might not.
But the fact remains that quite a few sins, especially in the eyes of a fundamentalist Christian, are perfectly legal - and often practiced by said "Christians." But they pick the ones they think only affect other people to battle.
Funny, all three of your definitions define it as Archaic and especially when it's exhorbitant... and some religions do allow the use of Usury.
Of course it is archaic. Nobody cares whether or not interest is charged anymore. The entire global economy runs off of interest. Most people can't imagine a world in which it *wasn't* present.
Meanwhile, some religions do allow for usury, but that is irrelevant. We were specifically talking about Christians who think they can pick a few "sins" and try to legislate against them while ignoring all the rest.
and that it is their views on the matter. thus others are "shoving" and idea/concept that they find just as repugnant as some find the arguments against Same Sex Marriage, "Down their throats" basically, I'm tired of people saying [Religion of the day] is being "Shoved down [my] throat" like they are not doing the same to them. Argue your posistion, ok. try to convince the other, fine. but to sit back and complain about pushing and shoving is just being as hypocritical as those they label.
Not at all. When I point out that the only reason for banning same-sex marriage is, "My religion says so," and that this reason is inappropriate because it is forcing other peoples' religions down my throat, I am not forcing anything down anyone's throat in return. I am not asking the person in question to support same-sex marriage. I'm not asking them to perform it in their churches. I'm not asking them to like it or accept it or consider any same-sex couples married by their religious views. All I am doing is preventing them from forcing their religioin upon others.
Suppose a group of Muslims wanted to ban all alcohol and pork from being sold in the US. If I said, "Not eating pork is fine for you, but your religion has no place in the law of this country and I"ll eat all the pork I want, thank you very much," would that be forcing pork down a Muslim's throat?
The difference is simple. Those who wish to enforce religion upon others are trying to force someone else to live their lives a certain way. Those who do not, on the other hand, are simply saying, "You aren't forcing me to do anything. Live your life your own way, and I'll live mine." The second option isn't forcing anything down anyone's throat, because it allows everyone to live as they wish to live, so long as they don't infringe upon that right in others. The people who are anti-homosexual can go on disapproving, punishing their kids for being gay, thinking that same-sex couples are really married, refusing to perform same-sex marriage, etc. All they *don't* get to do, is force those decisions on others.
and what is done in the privacy of one's home isn't the point for Same Sex Marriage.
Of course it is. There are those who wish to deny equal protection under the law to people based on the gender of the person they happen to sleep with.
neither is it the Legal status of being Married (since many say Civil Unions won't satisfy them.)
Civil unions don't grant all of the legal status of being married.