Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 107
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Equal rights under the law, for all.
    First, I'm just asking questions thats it, don't infer a negative tone here.

    This is not the issue, in fact its a non sequitur. Gays are not denied any right, including marriage. They may marry anyone of the opposite sex.

    What we're talking about is extending new rights and basically the gay marriage argument is without foundation, because scratch the surface and the fallacy becomes apparent.

    I'm sure you would disagree if I said a gay lifestyle was immoral. How can I say that? Yet you say not allowing gays to marry is immoral.

    The biggest problem is why just redefine marriage for gays, why not polygamy? Why not animals? You may say this is absurd but please tell me why this is and gay marriage isn't. I don't believe any answer will logically work.

    Do your beliefs allow for you to say anything is wrong or right?
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Where in my post did I say "getting rid of Christianity"?!
    Chick, I owe you an apology. It was Eurokitty who said, "It would be nice if we could get rid of fundamentalist Christianity for once and for all in this country. Now there's a chance we will, just not right away."

    I mistakenly attributed that quote to you. My mistake - sorry.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Equal rights under the law, for all.
    I assume you are referring to the definition of marriage. There is no violation of equal rights here. Every person, gay or straight, in the US has the right to get married under the law so long as, along with a few other restrictions, they are not already married, marrying a person related by blood or of the same sex. That is equal rights under the law.

    If the law said that a gay person was prohibited from getting married, then that would not be equal and therefore discriminating.

    Using your logic, prohibiting a brother and a sister from getting married is discrimination against siblings.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The degree of international isolation the Bush administration has managed to achieve is impressive
    Not that this will matter for the Bush supporters, they are happy about being alone in world, right?
    Yep, and their idea of a good cultural vacation is two weeks at Disney World.

    That would be a good Poll. That if you polled people and compared within carriers, not against each carrier. That Republicans make up a noticably larger percentage of Sprint and Verizon users, than they do GSM.
  5. #25  
    Not that there's anything wrong with being a sibling.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by cglaguna
    Yep, and their idea of a good cultural vacation is two weeks at Disney World.

    That would be a good Poll. That if you polled people and compared within carriers, not against each carrier. That Republicans make up a noticably larger percentage of Sprint and Verizon users, than they do GSM.

    I'm happy being alone the world, in my workplace anywhere, if I'm convinced I'm alone because of my beliefs and my beliefs are right. But the premise of your argument is false anyways, we're not alone and have plenty of international allies.



    From clulup:
    "Not that this will matter for the Bush supporters, they are happy about being alone in world, right"
    Funny coming from a Swiss citizen.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    Be careful Chick- if you post too many opposing opinions about the election, they will close your thread.
    On behalf of all the mods, I resent that. We try to be as fair as possible, political viewpoints be damned. If you have objections to things, please raise them with us, but do not insult the job we do without a) reference to evidence and b) giving us a chance to recognize our mistakes and fix them.
  8. #28  
    I don't believe any answer will logically work.
    You can dance around it any way you want, you know there are certain things a spouse has rights to in regards to a loved one that non-spousal relationships do not. That's the issue. Marriage as viewed by law, not your religion. What is not logical is why anyone would struggle against allowing for those equal rights to two loving adults who want to make that commitment?

    Anyone else wanna step up to the logic plate.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You can dance around it any way you want, you know there are certain things a spouse has rights to in regards to a loved one that non-spousal relationships do not. That's the issue. Marriage as viewed by law, not your religion. What is not logical is why anyone would struggle against allowing for those equal rights to two loving adults who want to make that commitment?

    Anyone else wanna step up to the logic plate.

    I'm not dancing at all. My last post to you presented several questions none of which you have addressed. Your counter argument is that "I know there are certain things a spouse has rights to". This is a moral proclaimation, but the whole point of my last post, which goes unanswered, is from where do you make such a moral statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    why anyone would struggle against allowing for those equal rights to two loving adults who want to make that commitment
    Also a moral statement.


    You argument is only valid, one if I agree with your moral statements and two we share an objective moral framework.

    So I ask again, do your beliefs allow for you even to make a moral statement.
  10. #30  
    It's not morality, it's equal protection under the law. As to "marrying animals" I won't dignify that.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's not morality, it's equal protection under the law. As to "marrying animals" I won't dignify that.
    I think we covered its not equal protection under the law. Of course your implying equal protection under the law is a good thing and thus has moral implications.

    Or let me rephrase do you believe equal protection is good, if so why and on what basis do you make your assertion?

    You won't dignify marrying animals? Why are you saying its absurd? Why is it absurd and what do you base this on?
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Sorry, I won't be fighting for the "getting rid of Christianity" part of Chick's rantings. Will you? The Soviets and the Chinese already tried that. As your pal John Kerry said, "God Bless America."
    I am also at awe with your statement about Chick. She wrote a very nice post in which she:
    1. Expressed her sadness and disappointment
    2. Accepted the outcomes of the elections
    Turning the table around: would you have done it as gracefully as she did?
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You can dance around it any way you want, you know there are certain things a spouse has rights to in regards to a loved one that non-spousal relationships do not. That's the issue. Marriage as viewed by law, not your religion. What is not logical is why anyone would struggle against allowing for those equal rights to two loving adults who want to make that commitment?

    Anyone else wanna step up to the logic plate.
    You are directing your angst in the wrong direction. You are not describing discrimination against the gay community but discrimination against single people who who choose to share their lives without the institution of marriage. Your argument applies to any unmarried couple, man and woman, man and man, woman and women. It could even apply to 3 women and 2 men.

    I don't necessarily disagree with you there, but your argument does not make a logical jump to say that a law that defines marriage as between a man and a women is discriminating against gays. Which is what you said that made me jump in.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You can dance around it any way you want, you know there are certain things a spouse has rights to in regards to a loved one that non-spousal relationships do not. That's the issue. Marriage as viewed by law, not your religion. What is not logical is why anyone would struggle against allowing for those equal rights to two loving adults who want to make that commitment?

    Anyone else wanna step up to the logic plate.
    I like your use of the phrase "Marriage as viewed by law" because it correctly denotes that marriage exists (and existed) apart from law. NOTE: The concept of marriage did not originate from law. As such, law "views" it.

    And, as such, law can not affect it. Marriage is, what it is, as established by its originator.

    The establishers of law in the USofA noticed that marriage is beneficial to the society at large (statistically speaking, marriage is consistently proven as a reducer of tendencies toward crime, poverty, violence, etc.) And in recogniztion of that benefit, provided incentives to encourage Marriage.

    This is not marriage, as in the legal status. This is Marriage as in one man, and one woman, in a loving, self-sacrificing relationship for life.

    As such, the question you raise is: will the United States of America, enact law(s) that grant(s) to other relationships the same legal standing as Marriage?

    The question I raise is, what benefits do other relationships bring to society? I am clear about what benefits such laws would bring to people in other relationships. But, what additional value do those relationships bring to the greater society in and of themselves?
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Muziek
    I am also at awe with your statement about Chick. She wrote a very nice post in which she:
    1. Expressed her sadness and disappointment
    2. Accepted the outcomes of the elections
    Turning the table around: would you have done it as gracefully as she did?
    Agreed. It was my mistake about Chick, and I have apologized in this thread and to her in a PM.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Chick, I owe you an apology. It was Eurokitty who said, "It would be nice if we could get rid of fundamentalist Christianity for once and for all in this country. Now there's a chance we will, just not right away."

    I mistakenly attributed that quote to you. My mistake - sorry.
    Just noticed it.
  17. #37  
    I guess every county does not hate Bush!!!! I am sure there will be more as the week goes on.

    World leaders rushed to congratulate US President George W. Bush on his re-election to a second four-year term and pledged cooperation with Washington to heal deep divisions over a host of international issues, notably Iraq and the Middle East.
    Brussels, the European Union's executive arm extended "warm congratulations" to Bush on his re-election and pledged Europe's renewed commitment to the transatlantic link

    Congratulatory messages also poured in from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and leaders from Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Poland and South Africa among others.

    German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who also clashed with Bush over Iraq, voiced hope that his country would continue its "good cooperation" with the United States

    Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said from Bonn that he hoped the new US government "would help to bring peace to the Middle East".

    [B]Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan [B], whose country is a wary neighbor of Iraq, expressed hope that the Bush re-election would contribute to world peace.

    In Madrid, Spain's Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said his government "wishes to contribute to effective and constructive cooperation with the Bush government."

    King Mohammed VI of Morocco, a strong US ally, hailed Bush's victory, pledging to work with him to enhance the "remarkable quality of the strategic partnership that unites our two countries" while also expressing hope for "a new international order that is safer, more balanced, more fair and more human", the Map news agency reported.

    Israel, a top foreign policy adviser said: "Israel and the free world has every reason to rejoice over this result."

    Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, in hospital outside Paris, said he hoped Bush's re-election would help jumpstart the Middle East peace process, one of his aides told AFP.

    Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, who hosted an EU-US summit during Ireland's presidency of the EU earlier this year, said it was important to maintain a strong transatlantic relationship and to "work together across the range of issues that face the international community at this time".

    "The Americans have made a clear choice," Portuguese Foreign Minister Antonio Monteiro told national news agency Lusa. "For Portugal there is no change. We would work with any US administration although with this one we have come to establish a very close working relationship."

    In Italy, President Carlo Ciampi reaffirmed the need for renewing "the spirit of transatlantic solidarity " because "terrorism is far from weakened."

    Russian President Vladimir Putin described a Bush win as a victory over terror.

    South African President Thabo Mbekisaid through a spokesman that he was "looking forward to continuing to work with President Bush to deal with the challenges of poverty and underdevelopment and to continue to co-operate on other bilateral issues."
  18. #38  
    NOTE: Not all marriages meet the standard of "loving, self-sacrificing." However, even in those marriages, the demographic advantages are evident.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    I think we covered its not equal protection under the law. Of course your implying equal protection under the law is a good thing and thus has moral implications.

    Or let me rephrase do you believe equal protection is good, if so why and on what basis do you make your assertion?

    You won't dignify marrying animals? Why are you saying its absurd? Why is it absurd and what do you base this on?
    For the simple fact that animals can't make those decisions, or even if they can, they can't communicate them to us, it requires no further discussion. Bring it up again when animals speak our language (or we speak theirs).
    Units - Unit conversion for webOS!
    Treo 180->270->600->650->Blackberry Pearl->Palm Pre
  20. #40  
    Following this line of reasoning, I suppose you would agree that:

    1. A man marrying ten 18-year old girls is ok, because everyone consents to the relationship;

    2. A man and a woman can use whatever drugs they want in their own home, because they each consent to using the drugs;

    3. Man and woman can shoot each other in a suicide pact, if they both consent to each person shooting the other?

    For each example cited above, such conduct is against the law, regardless of consent, because the conduct has no socially redeeming value.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions