I couldn't Disagree more. The gays think its their right to force the marriage community which is based on Religion to agree with them and take their beliefs.
I couldn't Disagree more. The gays think its their right to force the marriage community which is based on Religion to agree with them and take their beliefs.
Originally posted by: hysperion
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It does not say that all citizens must be given access to rights as they see fit. Rather, rights are to be distributed as the majority sees fit. If the majority shares a set of values, then it imposes those values on the minority. You can impose same sex marriage on me if you can garner the majority, just as I can prevent it if I garner the majority. Saying that it's bigotry one way or the other is ridiculous.Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Because our Constitution requires all citizens be equal under the law. Because the people want a legal way to recognize their committment to each other. To exclude one group from the same rights and priveleges as others based on some irrational argument is unconstitutional (not to mention bigoted).
Discrimination based on race, gender, sexual preference or religion is bigotry, it has nothing to do with majority decisions, it is to protect the individual
So your definition of bigot is= Proud to have an opinion other then yours. ?
Ni it is "discrimination based on race, gender, sexual preference or religion" which is what i posted.
You can do this with anything, so your definition of a racist = Proud to have an opinion other than yours ?
The word discrimination is the key here, look it up if you don't know what it means.
And you are missing the point... you don't have to change your beliefs. You can go on forever believing that men don't love other men, or women don't love other women.
They just want the same legal rights that heteros have.
Really, how will this change the lives of all heterosexual marraiges?
Don't give me that crap about what it represents, but how will it change your marraige now or in the future?
To me, the decline of family values means teaching your children that the world only thinks one way, and is not open to new ideas, which is different than how all the haters view it, Im sure.
Get out from behind that granite ten commandments, and stop hating.
Or some people can marry the person they love, with all of the perks and responsibilities, and some can't.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Meh, I would guess that to be a weak argument. Some could (and will) argue that this logic would seem to allow incest or polygamy. (I know, I've used that logic myself.)
It seems than the gender discrimination issue is the only one that is truly valid. In that case, I now view same-sex marriage in the same light I view flag-burning - that is, something I don't agree with and personally find reprehensible, but still a constitutionally protected right, or perhaps just an unfortunate, yet acceptable, side-effect of living in a truly free society.
And in that same light, I view the proposed Amendment to ban 'Gay marriage' to be just as silly and uncalled for as (everyone's hero) McCain's desire for a constitutional ban on flag burning. I guess we *all* will just have to suck up our personal feelings and let "them" have their rights, no matter how we feel about their choices..
No, the APA is an authority - one with less credibility due to its obvious bias. Its 'decisions' are merely interpretation of a very select set of data, and therefore hardly binding. Remember, psychology and psychiatry aren't exactly exact sciences. Results of such studies are, therefore, wide open to interpretation.
Your study that 'proves' homosexuality to be genetic in fact proves that it's not strictly genetic. If it were, then you wouldn't have 50% of identical twins, who have identical DNA, who were not homosexual. 50% of those with the gene for blue eyes don't have brown eyes, do they? In fact, I think this strengthens the argument that the environment is the key factor in determining sexual orientation.
Yes, but marriage in and of itself implies the gender restriction. Simply because liberals are trying to rewrite the definition of it now doesn't mean that the real definition hasn't changed. Go find a dictionary from five years ago and let me know what the real definition of marriage is. Here's one:
Therefore, the institution itself limits the parties involved, while the law does not. The law is an attempt to redefine a centuries-old definition that has never included same sex couples.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,395
- 8,557
- 126
so you're saying it is explicit and no reasonable people could disagree about what exactly is equal protection of the laws? if you bother reading supreme court cases you will find that not even the same justices are consistent in what 'equal protection' means.
Yes, I understand there have been historical variances on how the courts implement the amendment -- I mean hell, take a look at black America's struggle for civil rights or women's struggle for suffrage, etc., etc. Still, even with all of the deviances throughout history, I STILL don't believe that you can argue with the intent of the words. ALL PERSONS means all persons. Equal Protection under the law means equal protection. How can you possibly misinterpret unless you're attempting to support discrimination in some way. As Clinton found out the hard way, you can't redefine the word "is" at your convenience.
Again you forgot the "for life" part, society has already stepped away from the biblical definition and societys definition has changed many times.
You cannot use the biblical definition when it isn't even being used as it is.
That definition is taken from a dictionary, not a bible, nor does it say 'for life' anywhere in the definition. Libs are trying to change the definition to suit them, thereby validating some of the arguments that we are bigots trying to restrict rights rather than simply applying rights as they were intended.
Well, if you read the post well, he asked for research showing any indication of a genetic link, because his pastor told him there isnt any. Like any good Anandtech poster, I googled and found thousands of such studies, but only posted the first one. I didn't have time to filter and find the strongest study, but he was asking for 'any'. The study is one of many that puts the pieces of the puzzle. It basically says that if one twin is homosexual, the other will have a greater chance of being homosexual, showing a genetic link. Using scientific logic, you can see whats coming next.
And the APA is the identified standard for mental health disorders in this country. There are no others, and the standard used in Europe is not that dissimilair, and probably less reserved. Oh wait, you count the bible as the other mental health standard, dont you? Yeah, something written 2000 years ago doesnt really have the depth or scope of understanding of the human brain to be a true scientific standard.
The brain isnt an exact science yet, but our understanding is evolving (get it..? evolution) and 50 yrs ago we thought homosexuality was a disorder, and now more is known about the brain. Just as 50 yrs ago we thought schizophrenia and autism were the same, and now we know otherwise.
Know what? The sky is not blue, and the world is not round. Live in your own little world, cause god forbid you try to understand something that is 'different'. Its much easier to deny its existance.:disgust:
And the definition in the dictionary is taken from WHERE?
From dictionary.com:
ALL of it has biblical references which have already been broken.
As you can also see not ALL marriages refer to marriage between a woman and a man, not even in biblical references.
Hmmm, wonder how long it'll take CW to substantiate his dubious "facts" ... I can wait. Or should we just assume that you're the one who's blatently biased?
My scientific logic tells me that twins share similar environments. If it were genetic, there should be a near-100% correlation for identical twins, not 50/50. Thus, the environment is obviously a factor, if not the factor. Before you try to belittle me on religious grounds, take a step back and examine what is in front of you. You reached your conclusions on this issue because it is the conclusion you desired to reach, not because the data supports it. Consider all the possibilities before declaring that you first hypothesized is correct - that is science. I don't have a religious stake at all in whether or not genetics causes homosexuality. In fact, my religion actually states that it doesn't know, nor does it care. The cause should not have any effect on someone's opinion as to whether same sex marriage is ok or not - whether someone is homosexual by genetics, by environment, or by choice doesn't matter - they're still homosexual.
Taken from the 'New Concise Dictionary' under 'marriage.' I can scan in the page if you really don't believe me.
Of course it is biased, the very institution of marraige in todays western society comes from the bible, it has been changed a number of times, to allow divorce, at one point interracial marriages were banned in some states.
This is just another form of discrimination, in 40 years our children will say "what in the HELL were they thinking".
These religious fundamentalists, no matter which religion they come from PISS ME OFF with their ignorance and discrimination that has NO PLACE IN A MODERN SECULAR SOCIETY.
They talk about other religious fundamentalists as bad people while forgetting that they are just the same.
There are about 93000 dictionarys on the web, why would you want to scan one page of yours?
You are too damn stupid to argue with if you cannot accept that the biblical definition of marriage does not belong in a modern society and that THAT is why society has stepped away from the definition.
You can continue to ride your high horse and keep your holier than thou attitude but it won't do you any good as long as there are those who base their definitions on rational thought rather than 2000+ year old text books.
Because the dictionaries on the web can be updated to change the definition of words to suit a political purpose. That was the entire point of my posting the definition - to demonstrate that people are trying to change it to suit themselves. Sorry, but that's not how it works.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter