equal rights?

Yes, changing the definition of "marriage" is indeed CHANGE!

Again I ask you, how would my solution not address the issues you claim to have? Why is my solution not acceptable? So far, the only thing you have come up with is, it doesn't assault religious beliefs and the religious sanctity of marriage, all other problems are solved with civil unions. Face it, this is not about "gay rights" and you couldn't give a rat's ass about homosexuals, you want to tear down religion and religious customs, and that's exactly what this is all about for you.

On a side note... I am the one who is proposing a "moderate" viewpoint and solution here. The "right wing extremist" would be screaming how we can't condone homosexuality by even condoning civil unions for gays! The "left wing extremist" view, is the one you are expressing here, and mine is a compromise which solves the problem for both sides in a reasonable and acceptable way. Remember that the next time you feel compelled to call me an "extremist" because on this issue, I am anything BUT!
 
Dixie said:
I had no problem with Roy Moore's placement of the 10 Commandments monument in the courthouse, as the 10 Commandments are carved into the marble of the Supreme Court itself. They are one of several documents which are the basis for western law. I do not believe the 1st Amendment advocates a government devoid of anything related to religion in any way, because I believe in our founding principles of government, that we are endowed our rights by our Creator, and that all men are Created equal. I'm sorry, but that is a wholly 'religious' concept and belief, and we can't divorce our government from it, unless we want to destroy the founding principles of being endowed by our Creator, and agree to be enslaved by 9 judges in black robes.
Click to expand...

So the fact that Roy Moore would not allow ANY other display in the courthouse lobby does not strike you as against the 1st amendment?

The fact that only ONE faith is represented, and the first commandment condemns all other faiths does not seem out of place in the lobby of a courthouse that is to represent ALL the citizens of Alabama?



You are correct when you state that the 10 commandments are displayed in the US Supreme Court Building.

But, like most trying to justify what Moore did, you neglect to mention that it is just one of many displays.

Confucious, Hammurabi, Octavius Augustus, Muhammid and Justinian are also there, just as prominently displayed.

And THAT is what separates a religious display from a display about laws. One INCLUDES others, while the other is self-centered and excludes all who do not see things according to their narrow view.

Judge Roy Moore (whether you know it or not) once said in an interview for the Anniston paper, that he could not guarantee a fair trial to anyone who wasn't judeo-christian. His placement of the monument and the exclusion of all other displays, was merely the last step in his christian fundamentalist views.
 
So if marriage is defined by religion, and a "new" religion recognizes gay marriage, how can you deny the legitimacy of such a marriage? Do some religions have state sanction and others do not?
 
Dixie said:
Yes, changing the definition of "marriage" is indeed CHANGE!

Again I ask you, how would my solution not address the issues you claim to have? Why is my solution not acceptable? So far, the only thing you have come up with is, it doesn't assault religious beliefs and the religious sanctity of marriage, all other problems are solved with civil unions. Face it, this is not about "gay rights" and you couldn't give a rat's ass about homosexuals, you want to tear down religion and religious customs, and that's exactly what this is all about for you.

On a side note... I am the one who is proposing a "moderate" viewpoint and solution here. The "right wing extremist" would be screaming how we can't condone homosexuality by even condoning civil unions for gays! The "left wing extremist" view, is the one you are expressing here, and mine is a compromise which solves the problem for both sides in a reasonable and acceptable way. Remember that the next time you feel compelled to call me an "extremist" because on this issue, I am anything BUT!
Click to expand...

I have never claimed that I am moderate. I have never claimed that I am anything at all.

I am simply saying that marriage between same-sex couples will not change anything for people who are already married or who will marry.

The difference is that one group wants to throw a temper tantrum. Your solution is fine, except it is the fundamentalist's way of saying "If I cannot define marriage MY WAY, then we shouldn't have marriages for anyone".

Why should we change the entire situation just because the christians cannot define the law the way they want?
 
ironhead said:
So if marriage is defined by religion, and a "new" religion recognizes gay marriage, how can you deny the legitimacy of such a marriage? Do some religions have state sanction and others do not?
Click to expand...

Ironhead, the wiccans have accepted gay marriage for a long time.

But their religious beliefs do not count. They are not christians. Religious freedom is only for those who practice the right religion.
 
The most practical solution would be to get government out of marriage altogether. Marriage could simply drawn up in contracts by an attorney; religions could continue to have their practices as they see fit, and the government would acknowledge and arbitrate disputes as dissolution/breach of contract per its own rules. Juvenile/family courts could continue to preside over divorce matters with children, which could be viewed through child welfare laws as well as the marriage contract itself.
 
ironhead said:
The most practical solution would be to get government out of marriage altogether. Marriage could simply drawn up in contracts by an attorney; religions could continue to have their practices as they see fit, and the government would acknowledge and arbitrate disputes as dissolution/breach of contract per its own rules. Juvenile/family courts could continue to preside over divorce matters with children, which could be viewed through child welfare laws as well as the marriage contract itself.
Click to expand...

On the one hand I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business at all.

But I strongly dislike the idea that we do away with the entire institution of marriage just because one select religion cannot stand that they don't get to define it any longer.
 
Solitary said:
Ironhead, the wiccans have accepted gay marriage for a long time.

But their religious beliefs do not count. They are not christians. Religious freedom is only for those who practice the right religion.
Click to expand...

Or, more specifically, you can practice any religion you want, but the state will only recognize your marriage if it was established by the "right" one.
 
ironhead said:
Or, more specifically, you can practice any religion you want, but the state will only recognize your marriage if it was established by the "right" one.
Click to expand...

They will recognize heterosexual marriages done by wiccans, if they wiccan in question has gone thru the necessary steps to be recognized. But they will not recognize a wiccan wedding between two women or two men, despite the fact that the religion does not hold it against them.


But that is not surprising. When George W. Bush was still gov. of texas, the military chaplains service recognized wicca as a religion. Bush is quoted as saying that he strongly disagreed with the chaplain's corp recognizing a religion based on devil worship. That sort of ignorance is rampant.
 
Solitary said:
I have never claimed that I am moderate. I have never claimed that I am anything at all.
Click to expand...

Well you have defined yourself as an "extreme leftist" by your stubborn left-wing position on this issue. You don't have to "claim" it... you just are.

I am simply saying that marriage between same-sex couples will not change anything for people who are already married or who will marry.
Click to expand...

And neither would Civil Unions. It also wouldn't change the religious sanctity associated with traditional marriage.

The difference is that one group wants to throw a temper tantrum. Your solution is fine, except it is the fundamentalist's way of saying "If I cannot define marriage MY WAY, then we shouldn't have marriages for anyone".
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't have a "group" I speak for myself here. I am saying... here is a viable solution to the problem which makes both sides happy and we can all live with as a society. You are rejecting it because you fundamentally hate religion.

Why should we change the entire situation just because the christians cannot define the law the way they want?
Click to expand...

My position is not the "Christian" position, they would not even allow Civil Unions for gay people. In fact, they might condone incarceration and death by stoning for homosexuals because it is an abomination. My viewpoint is "moderate" in comparison to the extreme right wing. Your position is the extreme left wing position. We should change the law to disassociate the religious aspect of marriage from government, as well as any sexual or intimate aspects, and adopt comprehensive Civil Unions legislation as I have proposed. Why shouldn't we do that?
 
Too late to say you aren't speaking for the christians, Dixie. You have already said you have no problem with Roy Moore's actions, which are CLEARLY against the US Constitution and against every other faith but christianity.

Funny, you claim to speak for yourself, and yet you insist that I speak for the extreme-left. Must be nice to decide who you speak for AND who everyone else speaks for.


Dixie, there is no need to rewrite the entire system when one little change will do. There is no need to make marriage obsolete, when simply allowing gays the same benefits will do.


I do not dislike religion. I dislike closed-mindedness. I dislike one group either demanding that THEIR views be the ONLY views or no one's views should be respected.

I am probably one of the more spiritual people on this board. You have decided otherwise based solely on my desire to see marriage extended to gays.
 
Watermark said:
Civil marriage is NOT a religious ceremony you fuckwad!
Click to expand...

But WM, didn't you know that allowing gays to be married would ruin and defile the entire institution of marriage? lmao

At least that is what, the ever open-minded, Dixie insists.
 
Solitary said:
But WM, didn't you know that allowing gays to be married would ruin and defile the entire institution of marriage? lmao

At least that is what, the ever open-minded, Dixie insists.
Click to expand...

Solitary, you are an atheist, right?

Dixie apparently doesn't believe your marriage with your wife is legitimate.
 
Watermark said:
Solitary, you are an atheist, right?

Dixie apparently doesn't believe your marriage with your wife is legitimate.
Click to expand...

I'm not an atheist, but I am not a christian either. take too long to explain what I believe. (plus I consider it personal & private)

But yep, thats what it means.
 
Solitary said:
I'm not an atheist, but I am not a christian either. take too long to explain what I believe. (plus I consider it personal & private)

But yep, thats what it means.
Click to expand...

LOL I didn't know it was private. O_O

There's all kinds of people in the world always having the urge to tell every single facet of their specific belief to everyone in the world whether or not they want to hear it.

Anyway, there are a lot married atheists. Does Dixie believe government should deny non-religious people marriage? That doesn't violate equal protection because everyone has the same rights as everyone else to marry religious people.
 
Watermark said:
LOL I didn't know it was private. O_O

There's all kinds of people in the world always having the urge to tell every single facet of their specific belief to everyone in the world whether or not they want to hear it.

Anyway, there are a lot married atheists. Does Dixie believe government should deny non-religious people marriage? That doesn't violate equal protection because everyone has the same rights as everyone else to marry religious people.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to sound like I was keeping a secret. I just meant that I think people should come to terms with their beliefs within themselves. And that people should hold their beliefs a little closer.
 
More diarrhea of the mouth, I see. Solitary, you can claim you are this or that, but you are a left wing extremist based on your position here. I am a 'moderate' because my position considers both sides of the issue, which you continue to refuse to do. Until we can compromise on this issue, it will not be solved, so you are effectively denying gay couples the very 'rights' you claim to support.

There is no "completely rewriting the system" in my proposal, just a simple and minor change, which doesn't infringe on religious freedoms and gives gay couples every benefit they seek. You are a closed-minded bigot on the subject, because you hate and loath religion. You've practically admitted as much.

Now continue on with your smart ass replies to Waterhead, and sarcastic personal retorts at me, because that is essentially all you are worth as a person. Can't debate the issue, can't compromise a damn bit, just run your fucking anti-religious mouth and act like a fucking know it all.
 
Watermark said:
Civil marriage is NOT a religious ceremony you fuckwad!
Click to expand...

Marriage, whether you define it as "civil" or otherwise, is indeed a religious ceremony and institution. I have never stated that atheists could not marry, or anyone else for that matter. You want to construct straw men because you, like your buddy Solitary, are too inept to debate the subject or tell me how my proposal would not accomplish the stated desires of gay couples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top