PDA

View Full Version : Religious offshoot argument from American Elections



Pages : [1] 2

antimony
05 Sep 15,, 01:39
So you will disregard what an entire religion claims and take the words and action of the person himself?

I'm not saying Obama is or isn't a muslim. I just want to get some definitions down to have a discussion.

GN

The entire Hindu pantheon claims that I am Hindu. I say I am an Atheist. What does it matter what the religious texts say, they are stories and myths anyway. Far more important is what the person thinks. Obama happens to believe in one particular brand of fairytale (that the man nailed to wooden sticks was son of "god") instead of another (the man hallucinating in a cave is "god's prophet").

Even more important, if he was, so what? Does that defile the constitution?

Bigfella
05 Sep 15,, 02:58
GN

The entire Hindu pantheon claims that I am Hindu. I say I am an Atheist.

Doesn't it also say that Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley & any other Indian is a Hindu? Isn't that the basis of those 'reconversions' - all Indians are Hindus, no matter if their families have been Buddhist for over 2 millennia, Christian for 1700 years, Muslim for over a 1000 or Sikh for centuries. Hinduism claims them all. At best they are misguided little children who have simply taken the wrong path, but most of them are victims of evil prothletisers who either deceived them/their forbearers or forced them to convert. Therefore their professed religion can be ignored.

That is certainly how the has been presented here by numerous posters & requisite sources.

I look forward to GN & every other GOP sad cases henceforth referring to Jindal & Haley as Hindus, as that is apparently the only definition that matters. Of course, that isn't going to happen & we all know it. Different standards for Republicans.

JAD_333
05 Sep 15,, 03:39
I look forward to GN & every other GOP sad cases henceforth referring to Jindal & Haley as Hindus, as that is apparently the only definition that matters. Of course, that isn't going to happen & we all know it. Different standards for Republicans.

Gee-whiz, I hardly know what to make of that, being a Republican and all that. But I fully appreciate that much of the world that follows US media would see things that way.

JAD_333
05 Sep 15,, 04:44
GN

The entire Hindu pantheon claims that I am Hindu. I say I am an Atheist. What does it matter what the religious texts say, they are stories and myths anyway. Far more important is what the person thinks. Obama happens to believe in one particular brand of fairytale (that the man nailed to wooden sticks was son of "god") instead of another (the man hallucinating in a cave is "god's prophet").

Even more important, if he was, so what? Does that defile the constitution?


I don't know if you meant to insult any Christian followers hereabouts by demeaning their beliefs, but I think we can do without terms like "fairy tale" and "wooden sticks" in discussing the impact of religion on the presidential race.

antimony
05 Sep 15,, 07:01
I don't know if you meant to insult any Christian followers hereabouts by demeaning their beliefs, but I think we can do without terms like "fairy tale" and "wooden sticks" in discussing the impact of religion on the presidential race.

If it helps, I think of Hinduism in similar terms. However I take your point and will refrain from further use of such language

However I will stick to my point that religion has a disproportionately negative impact on US politics
Even today atheists are treated worse than pretty much most other groups and money is actively diverted away from research.

Parihaka
05 Sep 15,, 07:16
Gee-whiz, I hardly know what to make of that, being a Republican and all that.

Quite. It's the same response I get here in NZ when I declare conservative views, I must therefore eat babies. I prefer in BF's case to believe he's being deliberately ironic, given his dislike of characterisation.

Doktor
05 Sep 15,, 08:59
Gee-whiz, I hardly know what to make of that, being a Republican and all that. But I fully appreciate that much of the world that follows US media would see things that way.

Nah, we are still overwhelmed by Trump's rising popularity, despite his version of everything makin little or no sense at all.

Bigfella
05 Sep 15,, 13:07
Gee-whiz, I hardly know what to make of that, being a Republican and all that. But I fully appreciate that much of the world that follows US media would see things that way.

If you weren't one of the ones who has spent any or all of the past 7 years talking about Obama's birth certificate or religion then you don't qualify. The insult was meant in the specific, not the general. As for the double standard, I give you Ted Cruz.

GVChamp
06 Sep 15,, 23:56
Nah, we are still overwhelmed by Trump's rising popularity, despite his version of everything makin little or no sense at all.

As opposed to the Open Borders Crew?

DOR
07 Sep 15,, 03:39
As opposed to the Open Borders Crew?

Is that a new rap group?

Doktor
07 Sep 15,, 07:00
As opposed to the Open Borders Crew?

I don't know who they are, can't make the news from I'll build a wall towards Mexico and let's all speak American. In the other news, people keep comparing that Kim clerk with that Muslim stewardess.

antimony
08 Sep 15,, 05:30
I don't know who they are, can't make the news from I'll build a wall towards Mexico and let's all speak American. In the other news, people keep comparing that Kim clerk with that Muslim stewardess.

I just got that reference. The stewardess had it coming, though I would say that not being able to marry is a bit more arduous than not being able to get a drinkie

antimony
08 Sep 15,, 20:33
Quite. It's the same response I get here in NZ when I declare conservative views, I must therefore eat babies. I prefer in BF's case to believe he's being deliberately ironic, given his dislike of characterisation.

No one says Conservatives eat babies (I do not think we have enough evidence for that), but many social conservatives frequently display a mean streak combined with a baffling level of hypocrisy. This is true across the world , not just in the US.

"Hey Guvmint, stay out of people's lives, unless it is social issues we care about (such as women's reproductive rights or marriage rights) in which case be as intrusive as possible"

Similarly:

Universal background checks (which essentially check if the person in question is legally alowed to buy guns) are deplorable, but voter id laws (which check if the person is allowed to vote) are not.
Lets interpret the constitution in a strict constitutionist manner when it comes to things that Conservatives hold dear, such as the 2A, but lets play it fancy with annoying things like the separation of church and state

gunnut
08 Sep 15,, 20:46
GN

The entire Hindu pantheon claims that I am Hindu. I say I am an Atheist. What does it matter what the religious texts say, they are stories and myths anyway. Far more important is what the person thinks. Obama happens to believe in one particular brand of fairytale (that the man nailed to wooden sticks was son of "god") instead of another (the man hallucinating in a cave is "god's prophet").

Even more important, if he was, so what? Does that defile the constitution?

I just want to set up some standards in our discussion. You and everyone else here know that I hate double standards.

I guess you are in the camp who believe that it doesn't matter what the rest of the "religion" believes, it is you who are the ultimate determination of what you are. Correct?

Parihaka
08 Sep 15,, 21:26
No one says Conservatives eat babies (I do not think we have enough evidence for that), but many social conservatives frequently display a mean streak combined with a baffling level of hypocrisy. This is true across the world , not just in the US.

"Hey Guvmint, stay out of people's lives, unless it is social issues we care about (such as women's reproductive rights or marriage rights) in which case be as intrusive as possible"

Similarly:

Universal background checks (which essentially check if the person in question is legally alowed to buy guns) are deplorable, but voter id laws (which check if the person is allowed to vote) are not.
Lets interpret the constitution in a strict constitutionist manner when it comes to things that Conservatives hold dear, such as the 2A, but lets play it fancy with annoying things like the separation of church and state
So now we've moved from conservatives to social conservatives, some of whom display hypocrisy. Well, they're not alone in that. Blanket characterisations such as BF's and yours are not only damaging to the democratic process, they are in many cases deliberately so, in an effort to demonise an entire subset of citizens. Don't get me wrong, just as many 'conservatives' as 'liberals' do this, and I've been guilty of it in the past, I just think maybe it's time to move past cartoon politics.

antimony
08 Sep 15,, 21:39
So now we've moved from conservatives to social conservatives, some of whom display hypocrisy. Well, they're not alone in that. Blanket characterisations such as BF's and yours are not only damaging to the democratic process, they are in many cases deliberately so, in an effort to demonise an entire subset of citizens. Don't get me wrong, just as many 'conservatives' as 'liberals' do this, and I've been guilty of it in the past, I just think maybe it's time to move past cartoon politics.

You said that apparently "Conservatives eat babies", not me. You are talking about blanket characterisation; how about disputing the specific points I raised, can you refute them?

antimony
08 Sep 15,, 21:43
I just want to set up some standards in our discussion. You and everyone else here know that I hate double standards.

I guess you are in the camp who believe that it doesn't matter what the rest of the "religion" believes, it is you who are the ultimate determination of what you are. Correct?

I am in the camp that says all religions (including the one I was born in) can go to hell. However, for the purposes of this discussion, please assume that you are correct that it is up to the individual to define their beliefs. However, please answer this question, how do you know what the "religon" actually believes? Can you showe me one religoon which has its own definitive interpretation of what its belief systems are, instead of say, millenia long blood feuds between their sub-groups?

Mihais
08 Sep 15,, 22:19
Since you sent them all to hell,I'm quite sure you won't ever bother to study any of them.If you'd do that,you'll find what you asked for.

GVChamp
08 Sep 15,, 22:42
I don't know who they are, can't make the news from I'll build a wall towards Mexico and let's all speak American. In the other news, people keep comparing that Kim clerk with that Muslim stewardess.

There's an entire freakin' website on the topic and it's the entire unstated pretext of the whole "America is a nation of immigrations" shtick shoved down our throat.

However, two-thirds of Americans support border fences, we've slowly expanded physical and virtual fence construction, and we've made significant progress in deporting illegals over the past decade. And we haven't even properly funded our law enforcement or employee verification mechanisms.

Most Westerners are not particularly keen on increased immigration. I don't see any reason to doubt their opinion.

Parihaka
08 Sep 15,, 22:42
You said that apparently "Conservatives eat babies", not me. You are talking about blanket characterisation; how about disputing the specific points I raised, can you refute them?

Well I'm sorry but I'm not going to defend every position you claim conservatives take. Those you listed are not my positions. As for my 'eat babies' metaphor, aren't you doing exactly that by trying to get me to defend positions I do not hold?

Doktor
08 Sep 15,, 22:47
There's an entire freakin' website on the topic and it's the entire unstated pretext of the whole "America is a nation of immigrations" shtick shoved down our throat.

However, two-thirds of Americans support border fences, we've slowly expanded physical and virtual fence construction, and we've made significant progress in deporting illegals over the past decade. And we haven't even properly funded our law enforcement or employee verification mechanisms.

Most Westerners are not particularly keen on increased immigration. I don't see any reason to doubt their opinion.

Well, it is kinda silly. On one hand yoi have like 200 sanctuaries where by law the police can't assist the Feds unless there is a court order, but on the other, in your own word, the vast majority can't make the Gov do more for their issue. Rather strange situation.

antimony
08 Sep 15,, 22:51
Since you sent them all to hell,I'm quite sure you won't ever bother to study any of them.If you'd do that,you'll find what you asked for.

I am quite familiar with the various forms and subforms of Christianity, Hinduism and Islam and how they are practiced in developed and underdeveloped parts of the world. I am not quite familiar with what Pastafarianism says about the cycle of rebirth though.

If you want me to speak my mind about religions I suppose I can indulge you, but a Mod asked me to refrain on this a few posts back

antimony
08 Sep 15,, 23:16
Well I'm sorry but I'm not going to defend every position you claim conservatives take. Those you listed are not my positions.

No shit, since the 2A and American voter id laws do not apply to you.


As for my 'eat babies' metaphor, aren't you doing exactly that by trying to get me to defend positions I do not hold?

Pari,

I have see conservatives politics across many places (including the USA, UK and India). The premise is always the same. "I want you to do what I say because otherwise it is an insult to my <insert religion, nationality, caste, ancient history or whatever>" The positions may change; sometimes it is abortion and gay marriage, sometimes its dress, diet and lifestyle choices, sometimes its restriction to free speech. But always, someone else needs to live their lives based on the conservative's diktat

Parihaka
09 Sep 15,, 00:01
No shit, since the 2A and American voter id laws do not apply to you.
So why ask me, as a conservative, to defend them then?



Pari,

I have see conservatives politics across many places (including the USA, UK and India). The premise is always the same. "I want you to do what I say because otherwise it is an insult to my <insert religion, nationality, caste, ancient history or whatever>" The positions may change; sometimes it is abortion and gay marriage, sometimes its dress, diet and lifestyle choices, sometimes its restriction to free speech. But always, someone else needs to live their lives based on the conservative's diktat
what of this is not representative of every political, religious/anti-religious cultural and social group in the world?

antimony
09 Sep 15,, 01:00
So why ask me, as a conservative, to defend them then?


I did not ask you to. I gave you an example of why people get tired of conservatives



what of this is not representative of every political, religious/anti-religious cultural and social group in the world?

Loaded and somewhat misleading question. Representatives of religious and dominant social groups are the ones who make up social conservatives all over the world. They are the ones who encourage and nurture Kim Davis and evangelicals in the US, Jamaat e Islami in Pakistan and the RSS in India.

Anti-religious groups? They don't give a flying flip-the bird. As a non-religious person I certainly do not care about what you eat, drink, how you dress, who you marry or have sex with unless any of your actions are hurting someone else's rights.

Parihaka
09 Sep 15,, 03:13
I did not ask you to. I gave you an example of why people get tired of conservatives


how about disputing the specific points I raised, can you refute them?




Loaded and somewhat misleading question. Representatives of religious and dominant social groups are the ones who make up social conservatives all over the world. They are the ones who encourage and nurture Kim Davis and evangelicals in the US, Jamaat e Islami in Pakistan and the RSS in India.Kim Davis is a democrat.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/04/kim-davis-is-a-democrat-and-donald-trump-is-a-republican/


As a non-religious person I certainly do not care about what you eat, drink, how you dress, who you marry or have sex with unless any of your actions are hurting someone else's rights.
I couldn't agree more.
I suggest you read 'The Great Debate' by Yuval Levin and 'How We Invented Freedom And Why It Matters' by Daniel Hannan

Jimbo
09 Sep 15,, 06:27
I did not ask you to. I gave you an example of why people get tired of conservatives



Loaded and somewhat misleading question. Representatives of religious and dominant social groups are the ones who make up social conservatives all over the world. They are the ones who encourage and nurture Kim Davis and evangelicals in the US, Jamaat e Islami in Pakistan and the RSS in India.

Anti-religious groups? They don't give a flying flip-the bird. As a non-religious person I certainly do not care about what you eat, drink, how you dress, who you marry or have sex with unless any of your actions are hurting someone else's rights.

That is the key isn't it. Two issues you have raised gay marriage and abortion do influence the rights of others not involving the two people in the first and the mother in the second. Lets go to the U.S. Constitution shall we. 1st Amendment says free exercise of religion, not worship. How in the world does me not baking a cake or taking someone's picture infringe on their ability to live together, do what they want at night, and call their relationship whatever they want? It doesn't, but real people are facing financial ruin, fees, or even jail because they want to run their business in accordance with their religious beliefs. One side is forcing beliefs on the other here, lets call a spade a spade. For the record I don't think an atheist baker should have to bake a cake for a first communion either. This is about events not about discriminating against a person. Abortion well you never answered my question in another post so I doubt I will make any headway on that here. I will simply say that for most anti-abortion/pro-life (whatever you fancy) their motivation is not control of women, it is rather a) there is a human life that is terminated without just cause and b) it is an act that often caused the mother herself severe emotional and even in certain cases physical harm.

They don't give a flying rip, really? Then why did they force Catholic charities to shut down their adoption agency in Massachusetts after gay marriage became legal there? Why are they forcing bakers and photographers out of business? Why does the Obama Administration keep suing the Little Sisters of the Poor? Here is the deal, there are jerks in the liberal camp and jerks in the conservative camp. Lets not pretend one side is a perfect being in all this. There is plenty of demonizing going around from both sides.

The demonizing has prevented the two sides from coming together to get some sort of solutions. Take gay marriage for example set up legal protections (especially for possessions, right to visit) understanding we are a free society; however, as we are a free society accepting that people are not going to accept that lifestyle and have their reasons for thinking it is harmful to society and thus protecting their liberty to go about living their faith as they see it including how they help the poor, the unfortunate (such as adoption agencies), and how they run their business. There was/is no room for compromise by either side and this issue if pressed further against religious liberty has the potential to really cause trouble for our republic.

To bring this back to the 2016 U.S. general election. I am interested to look into Bush's tax plan and it is nice to have some actual policy put forward. That Trump blasted Bush for being boring because he talks policy just drives me further from Trump. My personal opinion of Trump is he is simply playing to a crowd like all politicos do, just a different crowd than the others. I think he has the wool pulled over a lot of eyes.

JAD_333
09 Sep 15,, 06:55
I have see conservatives politics across many places (including the USA, UK and India). The premise is always the same. "I want you to do what I say because otherwise it is an insult to my <insert religion, nationality, caste, ancient history or whatever>" The positions may change; sometimes it is abortion and gay marriage, sometimes its dress, diet and lifestyle choices, sometimes its restriction to free speech. But always, someone else needs to live their lives based on the conservative's diktat

This applies to liberals as well as conservatives. The former we can generally characterize as believers in the ideal that government can solve social ills, and in the process of putting their (our) money where their mouths are, they gather to themselves the power to institute programs for that purpose.

We can broadly characterize conservatives as the opposite. They generally believe that government's role should be limited and that a swollen social apparatus is fiscally dangerous, and they gather to themselves power to arrest the growth of government.

These two approaches to the role of government are unsurprisingly embodied in two main political parties. The parties themselves were formed and are run by a group of expert politicians and political thinkers. They each attract a small percentage of the population who understands and agrees with their core principles.

Then comes the concentric circles that form around them made up people with varied beliefs, from the reasonable to the nut jobs. The conservative party may suddenly find it is popular with evangelical Christians who despise abortions and gay marriage and whatnot, and that is what happened. The liberal party may suddenly discover that it is popular with people favoring an extreme form of nanny state. These appendages to the parties are the one who insist on imposing their desires on others.

Now, if you remember that the goal of the party core is to gather to itself power over government, then you can see why the core players in the parties play to these ramora-like constituencies. No votes; no power. And once in power the core will throw bones to their more extreme supporters to keep them in line.

But at their heart the two parties will stick with their true agendas, and what you get, depending on what party has the power, is either a liberal/progressive party with a touch of conservatism blended in and, vice versa, a conservative party with a touch of liberalism blended in. This blending is how political compromise is made possible.

My friend, what we have here is nothing more than a social phenomenon that, in a democracy, maintains a balance between extremes. It is not something that, when perceived, should make us angry, put upon, or disillusioned, although getting mad at some of the weird sh*t is perfectly okay. You seem to disdain conservatism to the point of wishing it was eradicated. This is shortsighted. Politics is a seesaw. If you kick one side off the seesaw, it will crash down, and then you'll see extremism in all its glory and soon enough you'll see Americans looking for a safe haven like those unfortunate refugees from Syria. Don't think it can't happen.

antimony
09 Sep 15,, 08:21
Kim Davis is a democrat.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/04/kim-davis-is-a-democrat-and-donald-trump-is-a-republican/


And so is Gunnut (sorry dude, couldn't resist). So were George Wallace and many others. Seriously, why does her party affiliation matter? Her actions are that of a social conservative. Look who has lined up to support her.

antimony
09 Sep 15,, 08:34
This applies to liberals as well as conservatives. The former we can generally characterize as believers in the ideal that government can solve social ills, and in the process of putting their (our) money where their mouths are, they gather to themselves the power to institute programs for that purpose.

We can broadly characterize conservatives as the opposite. They generally believe that government's role should be limited and that a swollen social apparatus is fiscally dangerous, and they gather to themselves power to arrest the growth of government.

These two approaches to the role of government are unsurprisingly embodied in two main political parties. The parties themselves were formed and are run by a group of expert politicians and political thinkers. They each attract a small percentage of the population who understands and agrees with their core principles.

Then comes the concentric circles that form around them made up people with varied beliefs, from the reasonable to the nut jobs. The conservative party may suddenly find it is popular with evangelical Christians who despise abortions and gay marriage and whatnot, and that is what happened. The liberal party may suddenly discover that it is popular with people favoring an extreme form of nanny state. These appendages to the parties are the one who insist on imposing their desires on others.

Now, if you remember that the goal of the party core is to gather to itself power over government, then you can see why the core players in the parties play to these ramora-like constituencies. No votes; no power. And once in power the core will throw bones to their more extreme supporters to keep them in line.

But at their heart the two parties will stick with their true agendas, and what you get, depending on what party has the power, is either a liberal/progressive party with a touch of conservatism blended in and, vice versa, a conservative party with a touch of liberalism blended in. This blending is how political compromise is made possible.

My friend, what we have here is nothing more than a social phenomenon that, in a democracy, maintains a balance between extremes. It is not something that, when perceived, should make us angry, put upon, or disillusioned, although getting mad at some of the weird sh*t is perfectly okay. You seem to disdain conservatism to the point of wishing it was eradicated. This is shortsighted. Politics is a seesaw. If you kick one side off the seesaw, it will crash down, and then you'll see extremism in all its glory and soon enough you'll see Americans looking for a safe haven like those unfortunate refugees from Syria. Don't think it can't happen.

JAD

This is a tad unfair. The characterization that I disdain conservatism as a whole is not true. I am happy with market economics, fiscal conservatism as well as limited government (hell, I love that). What cheeses me off is socially regressive politics brought on by clinging to religion and traditional customs. As I have said, this tendency is not limited to the US.

Let me share some of my personal experiences. As you know, I am part of an immigrant community that is sometimes characterized as "model" or "successful" (whatever they mean). Most of the members within this community would be supporters of fiscally conservative politics like lower taxes, freer markets etc. but they end up supporting the Dems as they see the GOP as an old white man's party. If the GOP opts for a broader, inclusive socially progressive agenda (gay marriage, agree that black lives matter, stop denying climate change or trying to defund education and research) , they would be the Grand New Party and leave the Dems in the dust. This is not difficult to do, if they have the vision and the courage to leave behind the ones pulling them back.

antimony
09 Sep 15,, 08:53
That is the key isn't it. Two issues you have raised gay marriage and abortion do influence the rights of others not involving the two people in the first and the mother in the second. Lets go to the U.S. Constitution shall we. 1st Amendment says free exercise of religion, not worship. How in the world does me not baking a cake or taking someone's picture infringe on their ability to live together, do what they want at night, and call their relationship whatever they want? It doesn't, but real people are facing financial ruin, fees, or even jail because they want to run their business in accordance with their religious beliefs. One side is forcing beliefs on the other here, lets call a spade a spade. For the record I don't think an atheist baker should have to bake a cake for a first communion either. This is about events not about discriminating against a person. Abortion well you never answered my question in another post so I doubt I will make any headway on that here. I will simply say that for most anti-abortion/pro-life (whatever you fancy) their motivation is not control of women, it is rather a) there is a human life that is terminated without just cause and b) it is an act that often caused the mother herself severe emotional and even in certain cases physical harm.

They don't give a flying rip, really? Then why did they force Catholic charities to shut down their adoption agency in Massachusetts after gay marriage became legal there? Why are they forcing bakers and photographers out of business? Why does the Obama Administration keep suing the Little Sisters of the Poor? Here is the deal, there are jerks in the liberal camp and jerks in the conservative camp. Lets not pretend one side is a perfect being in all this. There is plenty of demonizing going around from both sides.

The demonizing has prevented the two sides from coming together to get some sort of solutions. Take gay marriage for example set up legal protections (especially for possessions, right to visit) understanding we are a free society; however, as we are a free society accepting that people are not going to accept that lifestyle and have their reasons for thinking it is harmful to society and thus protecting their liberty to go about living their faith as they see it including how they help the poor, the unfortunate (such as adoption agencies), and how they run their business. There was/is no room for compromise by either side and this issue if pressed further against religious liberty has the potential to really cause trouble for our republic.

To bring this back to the 2016 U.S. general election. I am interested to look into Bush's tax plan and it is nice to have some actual policy put forward. That Trump blasted Bush for being boring because he talks policy just drives me further from Trump. My personal opinion of Trump is he is simply playing to a crowd like all politicos do, just a different crowd than the others. I think he has the wool pulled over a lot of eyes.

There are two things being played out - religious freedom and right to non discrimination. There are a number of cases headed towards the courts. Some will be as simple as the Davis case. Others will not.

Having said, that, let me ask this. Would you be ok with a Muslim landlord refusing to accomodate Christian tenants because they ate pork? I saw your point about an atheist not baking a communion cake. I expect to see the entire evangelical crowd triple their "Christianity under threat" cries.

Your question around abortion - I readily concede that on this issue the pro life group are driven by the sancity of life of the fetus. I respect and understand that, even though I do not agree. But what about female contraceptives? Why are women asking for contraceptive coverage treated as sluts? Can you answer that? Also, what's the deal around pro lifers actually killing doctors who provide abortion services?

I absolutely stand my ground, the ones on the social conservative side are the bigger jerks, and they have guns.

Doktor
09 Sep 15,, 09:09
Are condoms free and prescribed? They do the same thing wrt pregnancy, are more effective don't make hormons go nuts and are good vs STDs.

JAD_333
09 Sep 15,, 16:53
JAD

This is a tad unfair. The characterization that I disdain conservatism as a whole is not true. I am happy with market economics, fiscal conservatism as well as limited government (hell, I love that). What cheeses me off is socially regressive politics brought on by clinging to religion and traditional customs. As I have said, this tendency is not limited to the US.

Let me share some of my personal experiences. As you know, I am part of an immigrant community that is sometimes characterized as "model" or "successful" (whatever they mean). Most of the members within this community would be supporters of fiscally conservative politics like lower taxes, freer markets etc. but they end up supporting the Dems as they see the GOP as an old white man's party. If the GOP opts for a broader, inclusive socially progressive agenda (gay marriage, agree that black lives matter, stop denying climate change or trying to defund education and research) , they would be the Grand New Party and leave the Dems in the dust. This is not difficult to do, if they have the vision and the courage to leave behind the ones pulling them back.


I didn't mean to be unfair, and if seemed that way to you, I apologize. One of the points I was trying to make is that the parties cannot control the thinking of everyone who aligns with them, and in fact they tend to accommodate them to some extent to get their votes. As for those aligned with the GOP who oppose gay marriage and aren't swooning over Black Lives Matters, perhaps they have a point or two. I'm not thrilled with gay marriage, although I was for civil unions. I am appalled at the police killings of blacks in situations where it was clearly uncalled for and so are most Republicans. Must I express it by the liberal playbook? As for Climate Change...perhaps there is something there we need to deal with asap. On the other hand, both believers and deniers are equally ignorant as to the real causes and to the veracity of the data, which seems to shift constantly. The issue with measures to "combat" Global Climate Change is the cost of them and the impact on society and the economy. That hasn't been thrashed out, and it never will be, if we leave it totally in the hands of the faithful. A loyal opposition is badly needed on this issue, and I'm fine with the GOP taking on that role. Sure, we could pander to the other side on all these issues and gather up some support, but more likely we'd be labeled hypocrites just looking to expand the base. It's forgotten that the without GOP support the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have been passed, nor would the Voting Rights Act that soon followed it. We are in the main supporters of equality, but we are not always enthralled with the liberal approach to ensuring it. You say joining liberals in these things requires courage. I say applying reason to them regardless of the condemnation of some requires courage.

JAD_333
09 Sep 15,, 17:07
I absolutely stand my ground, the ones on the social conservative side are the bigger jerks, and they have guns.

The ones with guns who shoot down abortion doctors are in no way expressing a conservative ideal; they are expressing a warped personal religious ideal, and they just happen to attach themselves to the conservative party. Members of all parties condemned that act. You can stand your ground on the evil of that quite rightly, but you are way off base coloring that conservative backed. Quilt by association is an insidious debate point...

Doktor
09 Sep 15,, 17:41
I don't quite follow. The conservatives are bad for telling others what to do? Since when? True conservatives wont let the Government impose you a universal healthcare, they believe that everyone should pick one from the offer or none at all. With all the pros and cons about it. You will bear the consequences, good or bad, you choose.
The conservatives will give you vouchers to pick your school, wont tell you where to go. The conservative will be cool with your religion, as long as you don't try to convert them or try to impose you views as "one size fits all". What's bad about it?

antimony
09 Sep 15,, 19:47
Are condoms free and prescribed? They do the same thing wrt pregnancy, are more effective don't make hormons go nuts and are good vs STDs.

Counterintuitively, they are not always the cheapest option. The focus also is in placing the control inthe hands of women

Firestorm
09 Sep 15,, 20:05
The conservative will be cool with your religion, as long as you don't try to convert them or try to impose you views as "one size fits all". What's bad about it?
Well, that's nice. They don't like people trying to convert them, but they will give money to their own religious institutions to send teams of people across the world to convert the heathens, and scream religious discrimination when foreign governments try to stop them.

Firestorm
09 Sep 15,, 20:09
This is a tad unfair. The characterization that I disdain conservatism as a whole is not true. I am happy with market economics, fiscal conservatism as well as limited government (hell, I love that). What cheeses me off is socially regressive politics brought on by clinging to religion and traditional customs. As I have said, this tendency is not limited to the US.

Pretty sure there are lots of people like you. Economically to the right of center but socially to the left. A Right Wing Liberal so to say. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a political party, a majority of whose members prescribe to such views. Although the Dems would currently come closer than most of the Republicans.

antimony
09 Sep 15,, 21:02
I didn't mean to be unfair, and if seemed that way to you, I apologize. One of the points I was trying to make is that the parties cannot control the thinking of everyone who aligns with them, and in fact they tend to accommodate them to some extent to get their votes.


JAD

Pardon my expression, but I find this POV rather naive. AS a society we have convinced people to drink nutritionless sugar water and to smoke foul smelling cancer sticks and we cannot do this?



As for those aligned with the GOP who oppose gay marriage and aren't swooning over Black Lives Matters, perhaps they have a point or two. I'm not thrilled with gay marriage, although I was for civil unions.


Would you agree that it is a fait accompli? Then why not show grace and move on? Maybe have the Log Cabin Republicans take out a march or something. Instead, see how the Presidential candidates have rallied behind Kim Davis. the message is, move on with your life.



I am appalled at the police killings of blacks in situations where it was clearly uncalled for and so are most Republicans. Must I express it by the liberal playbook?


Politics is about creating impressions. I am absolutely sure you were appalled and so were many Republicans. None of that matters if you (by that I mean the GOP) do not show that empathy to the community that is affected. By staying away from showing that empathy (or as you say, expressing by the liberal playbook) you yield space to the Democratic Party and cement the impression that Republicans do not care.



As for Climate Change...perhaps there is something there we need to deal with asap. On the other hand, both believers and deniers are equally ignorant as to the real causes and to the veracity of the data, which seems to shift constantly. The issue with measures to "combat" Global Climate Change is the cost of them and the impact on society and the economy. That hasn't been thrashed out, and it never will be, if we leave it totally in the hands of the faithful. A loyal opposition is badly needed on this issue, and I'm fine with the GOP taking on that role.


Can we agree, in general, that we need to reduce emissions, and pollution? Can we agree that, in general, less reliance on oil (domestic and foreign) and more reliance on renwewables is a generally good idea? If yes, why not communicate the wilingness to explore these issues, instead of haranguing against energy efficient measures?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bachmann-to-democrats-dont-tell-americans-what-light-bulbs-to-buy/



Sure, we could pander to the other side on all these issues and gather up some support, but more likely we'd be labeled hypocrites just looking to expand the base. It's forgotten that the without GOP support the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have been passed, nor would the Voting Rights Act that soon followed it. We are in the main supporters of equality, but we are not always enthralled with the liberal approach to ensuring it.

And what happened after that? What is happening now with the Voting Rights Act ? It does not matter what you did 60 years back (or 160 years back, yes I know that Lincoln was Republican), what matters is what is happening now.

Right now, the distinct impression is that GOP is not an inclusive party. It is turning into a party of old white voters. Maybe they are doing what Rush told them to do - go get the white vote.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/05/03/the_hispanic_vote_isn_t_why_romney_lost



You say joining liberals in these things requires courage. I say applying reason to them regardless of the condemnation of some requires courage.

You think the Republican base is applying reason to every conservative idea they support? I am telling you, if you (again, I mean the GOP) are really serious about carrying forth what you really hold dear (small government, fiscal responsibility, free markets, equality), then go out, express it and be inclusive.

Doktor
09 Sep 15,, 22:03
Counterintuitively, they are not always the cheapest option. The focus also is in placing the control inthe hands of women
I said they are the cheapest? I said they have less side-effects. And are not prescribed. Why?

DOR
10 Sep 15,, 04:02
The problem with conservatism is that it does not support progress.
Conservatism essentially says, “The way things are is fine; there nothing that needs changing.”
It is inherently attractive to the haves, and deeply disturbing to the have-nots.


= = = = =

antimony,


• Universal background checks (which essentially check if the person in question is legally alowed to buy guns) are deplorable, but voter id laws (which check if the person is allowed to vote) are not.
• Lets interpret the constitution in a strict constitutionist manner when it comes to things that Conservatives hold dear, such as the 2A, but lets play it fancy with annoying things like the separation of church and state.

Exactly.
Dead on.


“I am in the camp that says all religions (including the one I was born in) can go to hell.“

Priceless.
I’m going to steal it, if you don’t mind.

= = = = =

Mihais,

What makes you think that a person who rejects religion doesn't know the subject? Do you believe that anyone who studies religion enough will come to accept it, and the only reason for not doing so is insufficient study?

Sorry, not good enough.

= = = = =

GVChamp,

You say two-thirds of Americans support border fences, which I won’t dispute because I can’t be bothered to look for a reference.

So, how would you feel about the majority that favor gun control? http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/08/august-2012-prri-rns-survey/#.VfDh8Jfdf6s

Mihais
10 Sep 15,, 06:37
That conservatives reject progress is amusing,at least.What they support are values that are consistent,proven to be sustainable.It can be expressed in Chesterton's saying about the way to properly reform institutions.If you can't see the reason for their existence you go think instead of simply destroying them.
The ''reformers'' are the source of the worst crimes in the last century.And if you only read about them you don't see the lasting moral and psychological effects.

That being said there is nobody stopping anyone from enrichment or technological progress.
But the moment you talk about have not's you lost whatever point you may have had.Especially when the have nots live better than magnates 70 years ago.
Let's see only one case.The great leftist reformers managed to destroy the family.Thus we have both a demographic and a social problem.Kids grow in the streets instead of a normal family.And they tend to stay there.So many issues could have been avioded by doing nothing.You created the have not's.

As for religion,I'm not saying all are equal.I'm saying that mine has a deep wisdom about life,society,sustainable values.It is useful.And like in many respects one can indeed find its use by learning instead of destroying for the sake of doing something.

As for gun control there is no need for debate.NO.Period.Ballots don't beat bullets.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 06:55
That conservatives reject progress is amusing,at least.What they support are values that are consistent,proven to be sustainable.It can be expressed in Chesterton's saying about the way to properly reform institutions.If you can't see the reason for their existence you go think instead of simply destroying them.
The ''reformers'' are the source of the worst crimes in the last century.And if you only read about them you don't see the lasting moral and psychological effects.

Yes, very amusing. I am sure victims of conservative governments across the world (KSA, Iran among others) are in splits. Oh wait, they probably are



That being said there is nobody stopping anyone from enrichment or technological progress.
Really? So the GOP is not actively defunding research?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/gop-war-on-science-gets-worse



But the moment you talk about have not's you lost whatever point you may have had.Especially when the have nots live better than magnates 70 years ago.
Let's see only one case.The great leftist reformers managed to destroy the family.Thus we have both a demographic and a social problem.Kids grow in the streets instead of a normal family.And they tend to stay there.So many issues could have been avioded by doing nothing.You created the have not's.

Wow, so many blanket generalizations that I don't even know what to address.


As for religion,I'm not saying all are equal.I'm saying that mine has a deep wisdom about life,society,sustainable values.It is useful.And like in many respects one can indeed find its use by learning instead of destroying for the sake of doing something.


Exactly the attitude I am trying to address. "My <religion, ethnicity, color, caste, creed, nationality> is better than yours, because it just is"

Let's do a fun exercise. Let's get the opinion of one sect of Christianity provide their views on whether followers of any other sect of Christianity and the other major religions (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, whatererism) is going to heaven or hell, based on their belief only. Then lets take any other denomination and do the same exercise. Rinse and repeat.

Then lets take a poll on who think who is going to hell. Shall we do that?


As for gun control there is no need for debate.NO.Period.Ballots don't beat bullets.
So, is that a yes or no on gun control?

Mihais
10 Sep 15,, 07:22
You found no better examples than KSA and Iran?Congratulations.

As for my nation belief etc... being the best,yes they are.For me and mine.Just as whatever belief system there are in India may suit them best.It's part of identity,being different from others.Or diversity ain't a strength in this case?

NO is enough to end any debate on guns.Political power comes from their barrels and you don't have them.Why are you wasting your time,is your bussiness.

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 07:26
If conservativism is so bad and backwards, why the progressives didn't invent a new progressive union, but had to stick to the marriage?

As for gun control, why those who chant for it have bodyguards? With guns.

Mihais
10 Sep 15,, 08:05
I have to be really bored to talk politics.One thing I suspected and it was confirmed, is that over the years,no amount of debate has changed a single fellow from one spectrum to the other.There may be a biological component.In which case I'd try to think what use lefties have in nature,before I shoot them :D

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 08:17
You found no better examples than KSA and Iran?Congratulations.


Thank you, you are very kind.



As for my nation belief etc... being the best,yes they are.For me and mine.Just as whatever belief system there are in India may suit them best.It's part of identity,being different from others.


Look, I have no say in how high you rate your religion, belief, etc. None of my damn business. But conservatives do not end it there, do they? They have to poke their noses at everything else everyone else is doing. That is what I am trying to oppose.


"Gays cannot get married because my belief systems say so"
"You should not be able to buy a drink because my religion says so"
"You should not eat beef because my religion worships cows"
"You should not be able to enjoy foreign cultures because my section of the populace does not like them"



Or diversity ain't a strength in this case?


Diversity is learning to live with and even enjoy different cultures, views and opinions. Conservatives ideologies usualy tend to grind diversity and pluralism underfoot. It is not "live and let live", it is "live by my rules, or else".

Mihais
10 Sep 15,, 08:21
You can always leave.Btw,sorry to tell you,but you sound very communistic.Lefties all over the place,regardless of ethnic background have the same issues.By your universalism you threaten our identities and our very lives.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 08:29
If conservativism is so bad and backwards, why the progressives didn't invent a new progressive union, but had to stick to the marriage?

As for gun control, why those who chant for it have bodyguards? With guns.

Why ruin something god when it works? That is not what pregressiveness is about. It is about accomodation, pluralism and diversity.

Mihais
10 Sep 15,, 08:42
It's your accomodation,pluralistic as long as it suits you and diverse in the sense that everyone looks and behaves the same.

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 08:50
Why ruin something god when it works? That is not what pregressiveness is about. It is about accomodation, pluralism and diversity.

Why taking such a backward idea?

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 08:58
Why taking such a backward idea?

Who am I to say which idea is backward or not, as long it is not hurting others?

If marriage works for you, then fine, have a blast. If civil unions are your thing, have a blast with that instead.

Lets take something that is really ass backward - child marriage. It is destructive for the child involved, and right minded countries have banned it.

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 09:04
And left minded did not? (couldn't help it).


Where is this not forbidden?

Parihaka
10 Sep 15,, 11:34
Why ruin something god when it works? That is not what pregressiveness is about. It is about accomodation, pluralism and diversity.

Quite the opposite in fact, as represented here by your and DOR's constant attacks on anything you consider conservative, anything that's not a purely progressive meme. I fully recognise that you cannot understand this.

Parihaka
10 Sep 15,, 11:41
It's your accomodation,pluralistic as long as it suits you and diverse in the sense that everyone looks and behaves the same.

I was amused to see the American intelligence anaylyst community in their formal complaint about the senior political appointees describing those appointees as Stalin-esk in their zeal to suppress any bad news from Syria.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html

DOR
10 Sep 15,, 12:34
Mihais,

Each and every set of values that becomes consistent over time started out as a radical, progressive viewpoint. Over time, it becomes accepted, and then “proven” and finally unquestioned.

Take out the first step, and society stalls out. The Chinese did it for thousands of years, constantly trying to achieve the perfect implementation of what they “knew” were the right rules for society. It was only when they were humiliated, and learned a new way, that they became the powerful and independent country they are today.

You don’t have to like how they turned out, but you have to admit that it was only when conservatism was utterly destroyed that they had even a hope of improving.

= = = = =

To paraphrase antimony’s wonderful turn of phrase, . . .
Brainwash, rinse, repeat.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 15:44
Quite the opposite in fact, as represented here by your and DOR's constant attacks on anything you consider conservative, anything that's not a purely progressive meme. I fully recognise that you cannot understand this.

I see that there is still a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are trying to say. We are not trying to bash up traditional institutions such as marriage (unles it is crazy stuff like slavery or chld marriage). All we are saying is that conservatives need to live and let live, and allow other ways of doing things to exist alongside, instead of making others live by the code of their choosing.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 15:52
And left minded did not? (couldn't help it).


Where is this not forbidden?

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#Asia

Look at the minium age for girls in most of the religious conservative countries (hint: mostly countries ruled by the religion of peace). Even in India, where child marriage was banned, there have been "accomodations" to allow muslim girls get married off at 15 years. A case of progressives being too liberal for the sake of politics

Parihaka
10 Sep 15,, 18:15
I see that there is still a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are trying to say. We are not trying to bash up traditional institutions such as marriage (unles it is crazy stuff like slavery or chld marriage). All we are saying is that conservatives need to live and let live, and allow other ways of doing things to exist alongside, instead of making others live by the code of their choosing.
And by doing so have redefined the meaning of marriage. 'Conservative' by its nature is in part conservation of values. Those who decline an equality of 'equal but distinct', such as civil union distinct but equal to marriage, instead choose to break down the meaning of 'marriage' for those who hold such things dear. Rather than create something new, they break what exists.
DOR, I get your analogy about China where a static system had to be destroyed for progress to occur. Do you remember when I defined Chinese government as no longer being communist but a Mandarin style of government sans Emperor? What I meant was it was the reassertion of their traditional conservative values with tweaks that brought them back out of the madness of Maoism. It's not as though mercantilism And capitalism was new to them.

EDIT TO ADD: heh, here's a conservative arguing For the removal of a traditional system.

https://youtu.be/6SpWeAZKYTU

tbm3fan
10 Sep 15,, 18:28
Well, it is kinda silly. On one hand yoi have like 200 sanctuaries where by law the police can't assist the Feds unless there is a court order, but on the other, in your own word, the vast majority can't make the Gov do more for their issue. Rather strange situation.

I'd take those locations with a grain of salt. They are isolated pockets scattered throughout the country which should be no surprise in a large, diverse country. It simply represents local opinion which can change quite a bit when the question is rephrased using US borders instead. Classic example is Berkeley and San Francisco which most everyone in the U.S. would go ahuh.

Yet, we had a woman killed in the City awhile back by an illegal alien who found a Federal Officers gun somewhere. He had been across and deported several times with a record. The S.F. Sheriff had him in custody and released without checking with the Feds. Now there is a lot of finger pointing and reassessing sticking strictly to not working with the Feds. Oh, and the Sheriff is one super big jackass so he has no political cover but he does like his uniform. Reminds me of II Duce every time I see him on TV.

GVChamp
10 Sep 15,, 18:40
What you're telling Mihais is not to take pride in his culture, which is a great way to make sure your culture is replaced, by people who actually do like their culture and are willing to fight for it.

Good luck with that.

Mihais
10 Sep 15,, 19:06
DOR,Chinese tradition is not European tradition.We had material progress and spiritual consistence.One can be improved by innovation and work.The other is pretty much eternal,since human nature isn't changed.And making some tweaks isn't in the same league with destruction.
Simply put,much of the social reforms of the last decades can't be sustained.Not because it is something new,but because they were tried before and failed.We tend to call those ages decadent.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 19:37
And by doing so have redefined the meaning of marriage. 'Conservative' by its nature is in part conservation of values. Those who decline an equality of 'equal but distinct', such as civil union distinct but equal to marriage, instead choose to break down the meaning of 'marriage' for those who hold such things dear. Rather than create something new, they break what exists.


How exactly is this affecting the lives of conservatives, except that knowing that some gay couple, somewhere is now allowed to call what they have "marriage"?
Conservatives (and anyone else) have the option of continuing with their traditional version of marriage while accepting that someone else is going ahead with a "nontraditional version".

Lets take the Kim Davis case. She has the option of not issuing licences herself but allowed her deputies to take their own decision. But no, she had to clamp down on the whole county office and impose her rule on everyone.

To quote Cracked:http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Suffers Anger or Anxiety at the Thought of Gay Couples Getting Married as an Abstract Concept, and Believes the Only Cure Is to Legally Prevent Gay Marriage:
This decision will cause you some degree of anger or anxiety. Otherwise, this decision does not affect you in any way.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 19:41
What you're telling Mihais is not to take pride in his culture, which is a great way to make sure your culture is replaced, by people who actually do like their culture and are willing to fight for it.

Good luck with that.

Wait a minute, exactly where did I tell Mihais not to take pride in his culture? Please point it out. All I said is that in a modern pluralistic, multicultural, diverse society, he should not impose his culture on mine. For example, he can choose not to drink on a Sunday, he should not try to force that on me.

If you are against pluralism, multiculturalism, secularism and diversity just go ahead and say so. Maybe you prefer a Christian version of KSA

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 19:48
Simply put,much of the social reforms of the last decades can't be sustained.Not because it is something new,but because they were tried before and failed.We tend to call those ages decadent.

So gay rights, women's empowerment, universal franchise, abolition of child marriage, polygamy and caste systems are all going to be rolled back then?

Mihais
10 Sep 15,, 19:59
Mother Reality will roll back most of those,not me.Like I said,nobody ever changed his opinions debating.You have your views and you'll keep them.Same with us.Time will prove who's right.50 years is way to short of a period.But there are already some cracks visible.

GVChamp
10 Sep 15,, 20:02
Wait a minute, exactly where did I tell Mihais not to take pride in his culture? Please point it out. All I said is that in a modern pluralistic, multicultural, diverse society, he should not impose his culture on mine. For example, he can choose not to drink on a Sunday, he should not try to force that on me.

If you are against pluralism, multiculturalism, secularism and diversity just go ahead and say so. Maybe you prefer a Christian version of KSA

Yes, he should, that's how Westphalian Nation-States work. If you don't like his culture, move to a different State where your Nation rules. That's why your Nation got its own state. You don't have a right to complain about your lifestyle being restricted in a different State, because that State does not belong to your Nation.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 20:04
Mother Reality will roll back most of those,not me.Like I said,nobody ever changed his opinions debating.You have your views and you'll keep them.Same with us.Time will prove who's right.50 years is way to short of a period.But there are already some cracks visible.

I myself have changes my views on homosexuality/gay marriage (I have become very liberal), and gun control (slightly more conservative i.e less support for gun control) after discussion and exposure to different views and data. You are of course free to be set in your ways. That's pluralism. Just don't spoil my ride.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 20:12
Yes, he should, that's how Westphalian Nation-States work. If you don't like his culture, move to a different State where your Nation rules. That's why your Nation got its own state. You don't have a right to complain about your lifestyle being restricted in a different State, because that State does not belong to your Nation.

No he does not. That is not how either the US Constitution or most other liberal democracies work. His likes and desires do not rule over my rights.

If you intend to stick to that line, then why don't we have the entire American Public weigh on whether to have expanded background checks on gun ownership and to hell with the 2nd amendment. Like that idea?

And while you are at it, define how you concept of NAtion and State are relevant here.

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 20:20
I'd take those locations with a grain of salt. They are isolated pockets scattered throughout the country which should be no surprise in a large, diverse country. It simply represents local opinion which can change quite a bit when the question is rephrased using US borders instead. Classic example is Berkeley and San Francisco which most everyone in the U.S. would go ahuh.

Yet, we had a woman killed in the City awhile back by an illegal alien who found a Federal Officers gun somewhere. He had been across and deported several times with a record. The S.F. Sheriff had him in custody and released without checking with the Feds. Now there is a lot of finger pointing and reassessing sticking strictly to not working with the Feds. Oh, and the Sheriff is one super big jackass so he has no political cover but he does like his uniform. Reminds me of II Duce every time I see him on TV.
For 25 years S.F.has this law. That's one nice pocket for a quarter century and they are not alone.

I am familiar with the case.

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 20:32
Wait a minute, exactly where did I tell Mihais not to take pride in his culture? Please point it out. All I said is that in a modern pluralistic, multicultural, diverse society, he should not impose his culture on mine. For example, he can choose not to drink on a Sunday, he should not try to force that on me.

If you are against pluralism, multiculturalism, secularism and diversity just go ahead and say so. Maybe you prefer a Christian version of KSA

You are pulling some logical fallacy here.

First of all Kim is not the first clerk to have a problem with gay marriages. She is the first to express it publicly and go on and on to the point to defy court order. Therr were cases where all the clerks resigned.

Nobody had an issue with civil union, but many had issue the marriage to be redifined as a union between same sexes.

Mihais
10 Sep 15,, 20:40
No he does not. That is not how either the US Constitution or most other liberal democracies work. His likes and desires do not rule over my rights.

If you intend to stick to that line, then why don't we have the entire American Public weigh on whether to have expanded background checks on gun ownership and to hell with the 2nd amendment. Like that idea?

And while you are at it, define how you concept of NAtion and State are relevant here.

GV has a point.States and even moreso nation-states exist to protect an identity.Culture,customs,religions etc.. and people believing in those ideals existed there before you are born.You imposing destructive change to suit your way is basically aggression.If you don't like it,move.

Your problem is that lefties everywhere are clone like.You heard one from Australia,you can bet the house one in Slovenia will say the same things with the same words.This very egalitarian way is by default a threat to any local identity.How can this basic problem be solved while keeping everyone happy,I don't know.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 20:51
GV has a point.States and even moreso nation-states exist to protect an identity.Culture,customs,religions etc.. and people believing in those ideals existed there before you are born.You imposing destructive change to suit your way is basically aggression.If you don't like it,move.


I defy you to find anything in the constitution of a liberal democracy that says that I have to move if my culture does not agree with that of the locals.



Your problem is that lefties everywhere are clone like.You heard one from Australia,you can bet the house one in Slovenia will say the same things with the same words.This very egalitarian way is by default a threat to any local identity.How can this basic problem be solved while keeping everyone happy,I don't know.

I am certainly not a leftie, my economic viewpoint would certainly be right of center. Now lets solve your problem.

Someone doing things their own way and not hurting others does not threaten local identity.

If I want to watch MTV instead of reruns "The Life of Muhammad" or "Jesus Lives : The Bible Years", that is my business. My eating burgers and fries instead of borscht (or whatever local dish) does not threaten your culture.

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 20:52
By all means vote no guns.

On one hand the war on drugs retracts to legalizing them, but on the other you wanna ban and/or control guns.
Good luck.

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 20:55
I defy you to find anything in the constitution of a liberal democracy that says that I have to move if my culture does not agree with that of the locals.



I am certainly not a leftie, my economic viewpoint would certainly be right of center. Now lets solve your problem.

Someone doing things their own way and not hurting others does not threaten local identity.

If I want to watch MTV instead of reruns "The Life of Muhammad" or "Jesus Lives : The Bible Years", that is my business. My eating burgers and fries instead of borscht (or whatever local dish) does not threaten your culture.

Go ahead, watch MTV, or whatever you wanna watch, live with another man if that's your thing, but when you want to call it a marriage it ruins someone elses perception of that institution.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 20:58
You are pulling some logical fallacy here.

First of all Kim is not the first clerk to have a problem with gay marriages. She is the first to express it publicly and go on and on to the point to defy court order. Therr were cases where all the clerks resigned.


What fallacy? Kim is the one defying the law as interpreted by the courts. Which other clerk has done that after the issue was settled in the courts?



Nobody had an issue with civil union, but many had issue the marriage to be redifined as a union between same sexes.

Really?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/protecting-marriage-isnt-enough-we-must-oppose-gay-civil-unions-too
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/romney-reaffirms-opposition-to-marriage-or-similar-for-gay-couples.html?_r=0
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/209534/what-s-so-civil-about-civil-unions-peter-wood

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 21:10
By all means vote no guns.

On one hand the war on drugs retracts to legalizing them, but on the other you wanna ban and/or control guns.
Good luck.

That is not the point. GV says that Mihais can dictate my lifestyle based on his culture. I am saying in a modern liberal democracy my rights will hold up.

DarthSiddius
10 Sep 15,, 21:19
Go ahead, watch MTV, or whatever you wanna watch, live with another man if that's your thing, but when you want to call it a marriage it ruins someone elses perception of that institution.

Why does it ruin someone else's perception? Would a hindu's belief in Shiva ruin a Christian's faith in Jesus?

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 21:24
Why does it ruin someone else's perception? Would a hindu's belief in Shiva ruin a Christian's faith in Jesus?

No, it's like convincing a Hindu that beef is good and that he should kill cows to gimme burgers and then wonder why he is pissed. I wanna eat ffs, hindus eat, too, right?

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 21:26
That is not the point. GV says that Mihais can dictate my lifestyle based on his culture. I am saying in a modern liberal democracy my rights will hold up.

In a modern liberal democracy you come to his place with set rules and rights and you obey them or go elsewhere.

You don't run from something, call on my conscience to help you and then try to shuffle my values, playing the victim card.

GVChamp
10 Sep 15,, 21:29
Why does the US Constitution apply to Mihais? Isn't Mihais from Romania?

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 21:31
No, it's like convincing a Hindu that beef is good and that he should kill cows to gimme burgers and then wonder why he is pissed. I wanna eat ffs, hindus eat, too, right?

No its not. It is like convincing a hindu that he can continue to worship cows but then I should be free to eat burgers. The Hindu does not and should not have to kill cows, eat or have anything to do with burgers.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 21:32
In a modern liberal democracy you come to his place with set rules and rights and you obey them or go elsewhere.

You don't run from something, call on my conscience to help you and then try to shuffle my values, playing the victim card.

First of all, in a modern liberal democracy I have rights that supercede his feelings. Second, if I have public opinion on my side, I get to change the rules.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 21:32
Why does the US Constitution apply to Mihais? Isn't Mihais from Romania?

It applies to me. If you want to take up the challenge instead od Mihais, feel free.

DarthSiddius
10 Sep 15,, 21:35
No, it's like convincing a Hindu that beef is good and that he should kill cows to gimme burgers and then wonder why he is pissed. I wanna eat ffs, hindus eat, too, right?

What you're saying aounds more like a gay person trying to convince you to marry someone of your own sex. You can preach the wonders of a delcious steak to a Hindu but you can't expect him to try it himself. Point being you both will be correct according to your respective perspectives. This can be a mutually exclusive concept. What's the harm anyways?

GVChamp
10 Sep 15,, 21:50
It applies to me. If you want to take up the challenge instead od Mihais, feel free.

What's with the bluster? I am not here to take away your rights. I want the social progressive movement to run full steam and implode so everyone can see what a disaster it is.
The US Constitution does not assure "Live and Let Live," for two reasons:
1. Your freedoms under the Constitution are based on a gross mis-reading of the Constitution by a self-interested, self-serving, and non-representative legal profession.
2. Even the current gross misreading does not protect you to do whatever you want. The US still has dry counties. The US allows local governments to ban obscene material.

More broadly, practically every "liberal" democracy has restrictions on acceptable speech and conduct. Most notably, illicit drug use, prostitution, pornography, slander, and political speech. Liberal Democracy doesn't mean Live and Let Live.

Even more broadly, the industrial revolution and growing strength of the West occurred absent the features of our current liberal democracy. You need a pluralistic political system and an open economy. You don't need gay marriage, universal healthcare, universal pre-k, or even women's suffrage to produce a world-class economy and world-class military.

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 21:56
No its not. It is like convincing a hindu that he can continue to worship cows but then I should be free to eat burgers. The Hindu does not and should not have to kill cows, eat or have anything to do with burgers.

So, Kim was right?

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 22:02
First of all, in a modern liberal democracy I have rights that supercede his feelings. Second, if I have public opinion on my side, I get to change the rules.

What you say is I don't give a damn about him and his values since I'm backed by the majority.

Different tune from what you are trying to say in the last couple of pages.

DarthSiddius
10 Sep 15,, 22:05
So, Kim was right?

Kim was wrong because she didn't do her job. Moreover didn't she break a law?

Firestorm
10 Sep 15,, 22:21
Go ahead, watch MTV, or whatever you wanna watch, live with another man if that's your thing, but when you want to call it a marriage it ruins someone elses perception of that institution.

Are there any laws to protect perceptions?

Further, a Gay person's perception of marriage is obviously different from the perception of a Christian conservative. So whose perception takes precedence?

Some people's perception of marriage may not include inter-racial marriage? Should that perception also be protected?

If my religion tells me Jews should not be allowed to marry, and I'm a county clerk like Kim Davis, can I stop the issuance of any marriage certificates to Jews because it is against my religion?

Mihais
10 Sep 15,, 22:43
What's with the bluster? I am not here to take away your rights. I want the social progressive movement to run full steam and implode so everyone can see what a disaster it is.
The US Constitution does not assure "Live and Let Live," for two reasons:
1. Your freedoms under the Constitution are based on a gross mis-reading of the Constitution by a self-interested, self-serving, and non-representative legal profession.
2. Even the current gross misreading does not protect you to do whatever you want. The US still has dry counties. The US allows local governments to ban obscene material.

More broadly, practically every "liberal" democracy has restrictions on acceptable speech and conduct. Most notably, illicit drug use, prostitution, pornography, slander, and political speech. Liberal Democracy doesn't mean Live and Let Live.

Even more broadly, the industrial revolution and growing strength of the West occurred absent the features of our current liberal democracy. You need a pluralistic political system and an open economy. You don't need gay marriage, universal healthcare, universal pre-k, or even women's suffrage to produce a world-class economy and world-class military.

Triple Amen to that.

Antimony,you pretty much nailed the problem.But you don't see it.For you the Hindu can worship the cow and you would like to kill the cow and have a steak.FFS,you're killing the very object of veneration and you expect people to stay idle?
Carl von Clausewitz,a gentleman I'm sure you heard him talked about on WAB :D ,said something along this:''The agressor is the most peaceful person in the world;he'd like to achieve his objectives without struggle.Conflict arises when the defender cannot accept the outcome and begins the fight.''

Parihaka
10 Sep 15,, 22:45
How exactly is this affecting the lives of conservatives, except that knowing that some gay couple, somewhere is now allowed to call what they have "marriage"?
It's not affecting the lives of conservatives, it's affecting the lives of religious people who may be conservatives or liberals such as Kim Davis. If it was a question of equality any ceremony that guarantees equality under law would do, but by insisting it be called marriage, it becomes an attack on the religious rite of marriage. By redefining the meaning of marriage it is a deliberate attack on religious values and those who hold them.

DarthSiddius
10 Sep 15,, 22:48
It's not affecting the lives of conservatives, it's affecting the lives of religious people who may be conservatives or liberals such as Kim Davis. If it was a question of equality any ceremony that guarantees equality under law would do, but by insisting it be called marriage, it becomes an attack on the religious rite of marriage. By redefining the meaning of marriage it is a deliberate attack on religious values and those who hold them.

A Christian marriage is different from a hindu marriage. Should Hindu's be barred from being married?

Parihaka
10 Sep 15,, 22:52
A Christian marriage is different from a hindu marriage. Should Hindu's be barred from being married?

Is the Hindu word for marriage the same as the English word for marriage, or have you translated it?

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 23:01
What you're saying aounds more like a gay person trying to convince you to marry someone of your own sex. You can preach the wonders of a delcious steak to a Hindu but you can't expect him to try it himself. Point being you both will be correct according to your respective perspectives. This can be a mutually exclusive concept. What's the harm anyways?

I don't expect them to eat it. In that scenario I would expect them to kill the cow and make me a steak.

Doktor
10 Sep 15,, 23:03
Kim was wrong because she didn't do her job. Moreover didn't she break a law?

There is a law that I should not be denied service. So, how would that Hindu refuse to kill a cow for me?

tbm3fan
10 Sep 15,, 23:33
but by insisting it be called marriage, it becomes an attack on the religious rite of marriage. By redefining the meaning of marriage it is a deliberate attack on religious values and those who hold them.


I don't see how that is the case. Try, as I might, I can't find a religious origin for the word "marriage". I find the typical Latin origin on to a French version onto a English version yet no religion is involved. No surprise to me since "marriage" is more a legal definition than anything else. If a religion appropriates the word to use internally then fine. Try to influence external discussion then they are out of luck. Problem is religion wants to propagate and control.

antimony
10 Sep 15,, 23:57
What's with the bluster? I am not here to take away your rights. I want the social progressive movement to run full steam and implode so everyone can see what a disaster it is.
The US Constitution does not assure "Live and Let Live," for two reasons:
1. Your freedoms under the Constitution are based on a gross mis-reading of the Constitution by a self-interested, self-serving, and non-representative legal profession.
2. Even the current gross misreading does not protect you to do whatever you want. The US still has dry counties. The US allows local governments to ban obscene material.


What bluster? you were saying your belief trumps my rights, I am saying they don't. As of now, the courts are on our side



More broadly, practically every "liberal" democracy has restrictions on acceptable speech and conduct. Most notably, illicit drug use, prostitution, pornography, slander, and political speech. Liberal Democracy doesn't mean Live and Let Live.


I believe I qualified that. Drugs and prostitution hurt others and are strictly controlled. There are less severe restriction on slander and political speech. This is abortion is also such a complex issue.



Even more broadly, the industrial revolution and growing strength of the West occurred absent the features of our current liberal democracy. You need a pluralistic political system and an open economy. You don't need gay marriage, universal healthcare, universal pre-k, or even women's suffrage to produce a world-class economy and world-class military.

So what? I readily agree a strong economy does not need libertyand rights. Just look at China. Also, you against women's suffrage now?

antimony
11 Sep 15,, 00:02
What you say is I don't give a damn about him and his values since I'm backed by the majority.

Different tune from what you are trying to say in the last couple of pages.

No its not. I am not taking away his rights, I am enhancing mine. Look at the Civil Rights movement

antimony
11 Sep 15,, 00:17
It's not affecting the lives of conservatives, it's affecting the lives of religious people who may be conservatives or liberals such as Kim Davis. If it was a question of equality any ceremony that guarantees equality under law would do, but by insisting it be called marriage, it becomes an attack on the religious rite of marriage. By redefining the meaning of marriage it is a deliberate attack on religious values and those who hold them.

Why does it have to be a religious issue at all? There can be special marriage acts which remove this from the domain of religion and make it a non religious affair. Religious people can continue to call it civil union or sodomy or the great evil or whatever. A marriage license issues by the state should not have anything to do with religion. You are basically saying that conservatives get butthurt when someone elsedecide to define themseles as per their wish.

My own official wedding papers (under the Special Marriage Act) had nothing to do with my religion. We had social and religious functions, but they had no official bearing on my wedding.

Also, Kim Davis is not a liberal. Look at the folks lining up to provider her cover.

antimony
11 Sep 15,, 00:58
Triple Amen to that.

Antimony,you pretty much nailed the problem.But you don't see it.For you the Hindu can worship the cow and you would like to kill the cow and have a steak.FFS,you're killing the very object of veneration and you expect people to stay idle?
Carl von Clausewitz,a gentleman I'm sure you heard him talked about on WAB :D ,said something along this:''The agressor is the most peaceful person in the world;he'd like to achieve his objectives without struggle.Conflict arises when the defender cannot accept the outcome and begins the fight.''

Mihais,

In this case I see it very well because I am aware of the origins of this practice and how it has been used to repress the untouchables/ casteless within Hindu society.

FYI, today a High Court put a ban on cow slaughter in the state of J&K, a muslim majority state, because the petitioner's feelings were being hurt. A regressive decision, in my opinion.

DarthSiddius
11 Sep 15,, 01:08
I don't expect them to eat it. In that scenario I would expect them to kill the cow and make me a steak.
The thing is, it does not really matter what you expect them to do. Sure, you have the right to expect all the things you want to expect, this doesn't mean the Hindu has to live up to your expectations.


There is a law that I should not be denied service. So, how would that Hindu refuse to kill a cow for me?
You're expectations are backed legally only if the Hindu's job was to slaughter the cow and cook for you and he was legally obligated to not deny you service. It was Kim's job to sign the marriage certificate, in fact she was ordered by a court of law to do so. She has the choice to ignore the court's orders but, doing so, she has to live with its ramifications. She is in the wrong here. If doing her duty hurts her religious sentiments she is free to quite.


Is the Hindu word for marriage the same as the English word for marriage, or have you translated it?
I doubt the English word for marriage has religious connotations. Are you trying to say only Christians can have a relationship called 'marriage' in the English language? What about the other 5 odd billion people? Your stance has no legal basis.

To help overcome your scruples regarding semantics of the word 'marriage' let me rephrase my original question. Atheists get married all the time in the English speaking world. There's is not a christian marriage. Should they be barred from marrying?

Mihais
11 Sep 15,, 01:09
That's precisely why I use that example.

DarthSiddius
11 Sep 15,, 01:52
Triple Amen to that.

Antimony,you pretty much nailed the problem.But you don't see it.For you the Hindu can worship the cow and you would like to kill the cow and have a steak.FFS,you're killing the very object of veneration and you expect people to stay idle?
Carl von Clausewitz,a gentleman I'm sure you heard him talked about on WAB :D ,said something along this:''The agressor is the most peaceful person in the world;he'd like to achieve his objectives without struggle.Conflict arises when the defender cannot accept the outcome and begins the fight.''

Although this is not directed at me I would like to tackle the above quandary. I'll give you this, you made me do a double take and think this through.

Me killing the very object of their veneration will not make me popular with them. I would be delusional if I think my actions won't have any ramifications. They can make me a social outcast, they can make me feel unwelcome (this shouldn't be the case in a truly just world but we play the cards we're dealt with) but they cannot and must not impede my rights. I still expect them to mind their own business. If slaughtering cows is illegal in the region I chose to live, I have an obligation to respect the law. That still doesn't prohibit me from voicing my opinions or join any movement against said law.

Bigfella
11 Sep 15,, 02:49
You're expectations are backed legally only if the Hindu's job was to slaughter the cow and cook for you and he was legally obligated to not deny you service. It was Kim's job to sign the marriage certificate, in fact she was ordered by a court of law to do so. She has the choice to ignore the court's orders but, doing so, she has to live with its ramifications. She is in the wrong here. If doing her duty hurts her religious sentiments she is free to quite.

Darth,

Good post, one correction. Kim Davis wasn't required to sign off on anyone's marriage. She had the choice of allowing one of her subordinates to do that. At least one indicated that they would. She used here position to stop her subordinates signing off on marriages & therefore blocked all marriages in her county - a job the taxpayers of that county pay her office to do. She chose to go to jail. She wanted to go to jail. She wanted to be a martyr & now she is, with all the attendant celebrity & hoopla from the Conservative Entertainment Complex & the usual suspects determined to paint Christians as an oppressed group.

DOR
11 Sep 15,, 03:40
Mihais,

European “material progress” ? Would that be the Dark Ages / Song Dynasty? And, what’s this nonsense about spiritual consistency? Aside from the rather young age of Christianity, there was something called the Reformation that was anything but “consistent.” Caused a lot of destruction for a few centuries, if I remember my European history correctly.

By the way, attacking “lefties” as clones isn’t nearly as clever as offering logical, thoughtful, historically accurate rebuttal.

= = = = =

Firestorm,


a Gay person's perception of marriage is obviously different from the perception of a Christian conservative. So whose perception takes precedence?

Depends on who’s getting married. When a Christian conservative (a contradiction in terms, given the teachings of Jesus Christ) marries, she gets to set all the rules. When the grooms are both male, they get to set the terms.

DOR
11 Sep 15,, 03:42
Dad called it “voodoo economics” when he first encountered it (and was VP when it the Federal debt almost tripled, from $789.4 billion in 1981 to $2.19 trillion in 1989), but Brother George embraced it with a missionary zeal . . . and more than doubled the Federal debt, from $3.32 trillion to $7.55 trillion.

Jeb!’s own economic advisers, including Glenn Hubbard and Martin Feldstein, can’t quite come up with the 4% annual real growth that’s supposed to pay for the tax cuts for the rich (and, to be fair, a token for the other 99%). They think it put growth at 3% . . . which would be right in line with this family history of ramping up deficits and leaving them for the next guy to handle (Dad also increased the debt, mainly because he had to pay interest on Reagan’s largess).

The New Yorker: Jeb Bush and the Return of Voodoo Economics
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/jeb-bush-and-the-return-of-voodoo-economics

Forbes: The Cost Of Jeb Bush's Proposed Tax Cuts, And What It Might Mean
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/09/10/cost-of-jeb-bush-tax-cuts/

Bottom line: Add another $3.4 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Parihaka
11 Sep 15,, 06:59
I don't see how that is the case. Try, as I might, I can't find a religious origin for the word "marriage". I find the typical Latin origin on to a French version onto a English version yet no religion is involved. No surprise to me since "marriage" is more a legal definition than anything else. If a religion appropriates the word to use internally then fine. Try to influence external discussion then they are out of luck. Problem is religion wants to propagate and control.

Why does it have to be a religious issue at all? There can be special marriage acts which remove this from the domain of religion and make it a non religious affair. Religious people can continue to call it civil union or sodomy or the great evil or whatever. A marriage license issues by the state should not have anything to do with religion. You are basically saying that conservatives get butthurt when someone elsedecide to define themseles as per their wish.

My own official wedding papers (under the Special Marriage Act) had nothing to do with my religion. We had social and religious functions, but they had no official bearing on my wedding.
It was Religions purvue until the State usurped control. In Britain's case, this was 1753
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753
I assume that like so much other law, this was adopted by the US when you became a Republic. The states have of course continued to modify the notion of marriage since that time, gay marriage being the latest.


Also, Kim Davis is not a liberal. Look at the folks lining up to provider her cover.
She votes democrat and has been married four times. This would certainly suggest that she's liberal. I'm also aghast at the notion that you don't believe that a liberal can hold strong religious views. The fact that religious republicans support her shows that it's a religious issue, as elucidated here (http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/09/a-liberal-pundits-guide-to-kim-davis/)

Doktor
11 Sep 15,, 07:42
Darth,

Good post, one correction. Kim Davis wasn't required to sign off on anyone's marriage. She had the choice of allowing one of her subordinates to do that. At least one indicated that they would. She used here position to stop her subordinates signing off on marriages & therefore blocked all marriages in her county - a job the taxpayers of that county pay her office to do. She chose to go to jail. She wanted to go to jail. She wanted to be a martyr & now she is, with all the attendant celebrity & hoopla from the Conservative Entertainment Complex & the usual suspects determined to paint Christians as an oppressed group.

She was elected for that job. Who else was elected for the job, but didn't go to jail? Right, those peeps who can't pass a budget. Who else, oh that lady with the server, let me think if there is someone else, her boss at the time. He must have received mails from that server, but didn't make her follow the law. But hey, marriage comes first, the future of the nation is at stake.

Bigfella
11 Sep 15,, 07:52
She was elected for that job. Who else was elected for the job, but didn't go to jail? Right, those peeps who can't pass a budget. Who else, oh that lady with the server, let me think if there is someone else, her boss at the time. He must have received mails from that server, but didn't make her follow the law. But hey, marriage comes first, the future of the nation is at stake.

I'm not following you Doc. She's breaking the law. She is defying a court order from a real live judge. She is preventing people in her county exercising their legal right register their marriage - gay or straight. The future of the nation is always at stake, that doesn't mean the local county clerk gets to decide which laws he or she enforce because this week's version of what God sez tells her she shouldn't. This is only a drama because Kim Davis has made it one. No other reason. Didn't have to happen. She wasn't required to marry a single person she didn't want to.

If Kim was Khalifa & she suddenly decided not to marry Christians because Allah told her not I somehow think it would suddenly be super important.

Doktor
11 Sep 15,, 07:59
Of coursevyou don't follow. I am saying the court was super expedient for her, but not for other elected officials and you play the Muslim card.

For all I care she broke the law, but saying the lae is equal from that high horse is what is hitting my nerves. It is not and let's not pretend it is.

Doktor
11 Sep 15,, 07:59
Of coursevyou don't follow. I am saying the court was super expedient for her, but not for other elected officials and you play the Muslim card.

For all I care she broke the law, but saying the lae is equal from that high horse is what is hitting my nerves. It is not and let's not pretend it is.

tbm3fan
11 Sep 15,, 08:11
It was Religions purvue until the State usurped control. In Britain's case, this was 1753
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753
I assume that like so much other law, this was adopted by the US when you became a Republic. The states have of course continued to modify the notion of marriage since that time, gay marriage being the latest.


Nah, the Church co-opted the word. Having a Latin root puts it further back than 1753. As I said more legal than religious for purposes of inheritance and so forth. That act simply shows a Church trying to exert it's influence.

Mihais
11 Sep 15,, 08:19
Mihais,

European “material progress” ? Would that be the Dark Ages / Song Dynasty? And, what’s this nonsense about spiritual consistency? Aside from the rather young age of Christianity, there was something called the Reformation that was anything but “consistent.” Caused a lot of destruction for a few centuries, if I remember my European history correctly.

By the way, attacking “lefties” as clones isn’t nearly as clever as offering logical, thoughtful, historically accurate rebuttal.

= = = = =

Firestorm,





Try Eastern Roman Empire vs Song.As for religion,I don't want to relate everything about culture and spirituality with religion,even if it's a component.But since you bother with it,there are Catholic and Orthodox beliefs that are virtually identical with early Christianity.And there are enough practices in plenty of places,Eastern Europe being the most familiar with me,that can be traced before Christianity.
You example with the Reformation is a poor one,IMO.While it set apart the Protestant cults,in many respects the Reform did not cut its ties to the roots to such a degree as to become un-christian.Wrt to basic societal needs and human relations,the more secular stuff,all cults are virtually identical.

Wars are a bit more complicated.There's hardly any war that started solely for one reason alone,and religious wars even less so.It may seem a bit of a paradox,but they started for tangible reasons.The religious angle was used more as a confirmation for the initial reasons.
And European wars weren't always a bad thing.Progress comes from war as well.

For the clone thing,it's not an attack,but an observation.I don't mean to offend you,but they indeed sound the same.Traditionalists/conservatives share some points,differ in many and disagree in some.But the left has the same speech everywhere.And by same,I mean same words,same reactions ,same set of beliefs,same behaviours.

antimony
11 Sep 15,, 08:30
Of coursevyou don't follow. I am saying the court was super expedient for her, but not for other elected officials and you play the Muslim card.

For all I care she broke the law, but saying the lae is equal from that high horse is what is hitting my nerves. It is not and let's not pretend it is.

what other elected official and what muslm card? Is it about the waitress again?

Mihais
11 Sep 15,, 08:34
Me killing the very object of their veneration will not make me popular with them. I would be delusional if I think my actions won't have any ramifications. They can make me a social outcast, they can make me feel unwelcome (this shouldn't be the case in a truly just world but we play the cards we're dealt with) but they cannot and must not impede my rights. I still expect them to mind their own business. If slaughtering cows is illegal in the region I chose to live, I have an obligation to respect the law. That still doesn't prohibit me from voicing my opinions or join any movement against said law.

Thank you.Look,people beliefs are part of their identity.You attacking said beliefs by killing cows or crapping in churches may be for you a way to feed and then relief yourself.But while doing so you attack the very identity and uniqueness of those people.And for some,this can be more precious than life itself.It's not that you ignore/attack/despise God/Gods and the divinities need human help.It's because you deliberately attack people.And no,this isn't just and isn't a right.Unless you see them as foes that must be destroyed.
You may see your position as innocent,but it's not.To give a similar absurd example,what you say and do is like one that needs target practice and starts shooting people.It's his right do be prepared to defend himself and his family.

antimony
11 Sep 15,, 08:57
It was Religions purvue until the State usurped control. In Britain's case, this was 1753
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753
I assume that like so much other law, this was adopted by the US when you became a Republic. The states have of course continued to modify the notion of marriage since that time, gay marriage being the latest.


She votes democrat and has been married four times. This would certainly suggest that she's liberal. I'm also aghast at the notion that you don't believe that a liberal can hold strong religious views. The fact that religious republicans support her shows that it's a religious issue, as elucidated here (http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/09/a-liberal-pundits-guide-to-kim-davis/)

Are you aware that Gunnut is a registered democrat? Are you aware that George Wallace was a Democrat, and so were a bunch of other southern politicians? How does her party affiliation matter? Registration as a democrat does not make you a liberal, your actions do. Her actions align with social conservatives such as Huckabee and Ted Cruz are lining up to kiss her tail.

For clarification, if Bernie Sanders sudenly spouts a disapprval for say, desegregation, I would classify him as a socon too.

antimony
11 Sep 15,, 09:04
Thank you.Look,people beliefs are part of their identity.You attacking said beliefs by killing cows or crapping in churches may be for you a way to feed and then relief yourself.But while doing so you attack the very identity and uniqueness of those people.And for some,this can be more precious than life itself.It's not that you ignore/attack/despise God/Gods and the divinities need human help.It's because you deliberately attack people.And no,this isn't just and isn't a right.Unless you see them as foes that must be destroyed.
You may see your position as innocent,but it's not.To give a similar absurd example,what you say and do is like one that needs target practice and starts shooting people.It's his right do be prepared to defend himself and his family.

You are taking this to extremes.

Crapping in churches or vandalizing temples (or mosques) should be heinous crimes with harsh punishments. No one is questioning that. Cow slaughter is a difficult issues, just like abortion is, as the livelihood of many are attached to it. These issues need further discussion within society.

Now if you ask the queston of balancing homosexual rights against personal belief I would agree that there are some cases which are difficult, like providing trade services (say baking a cake) to homosexuals. But gay mariage is about someone else's right to deal with their own lives. How homosexuals define themselves is relevant to them only. No cows are being harmed, no churches are being crapped in and no heterosexual marriages are getting affected.

Mihais
11 Sep 15,, 10:15
Extremes are useful for knowing the middle road.Talking about gays,Dok had a point.If they are different,why interfere with the regular concept?
Things being different,the whole effort was easily perceived as an atack by gays on traditional institutions.I don't have a problem with gays doing their stuff in private and having legal rights respected.And by the way,not even hardcore religious figures don't really have a problem with that.
Since people respected their rights or came to respect their rights,it would have been curteous of gays to respect normal folk as well.A compromise could have been found without the whole hoopla and whatever societal problems came or will come.

GVChamp
11 Sep 15,, 16:14
Anitmony,
Your definition of "harm" amuses me. A private economic transaction between two consenting adults is harmful and needs to be banned. How very amusing, and from someone who claims to be socially liberal and economically conservative. If you're willing to twist and expand definitions of "harm" there is almost nothing you cannot ban, "For the Sake of the Children."

For how other definitions have been twisted beyond meaning, see the words "Literally" or "Interstate Commerce."

Greatly amusing.


DOR,
If you don't like the net effect on the budget, you can adjust the rates accordingly. The guiding principle is changing how taxes incentivize behavior.
Here's what's in the plan entails.

1.It lowers the top rate on personal income to 28 percent, the same rate as the bipartisan 1986 tax reform.
2.It broadens the base by capping the use of itemized deductions.
3.It eliminates the deductibility of state and local taxes, so low-tax states and towns no longer subsidize high-tax ones.
4.It maintains the deductibility of charitable giving, encouraging private solutions to social problems.
5.It reforms the tax treatment of secondary earners and seniors, who are more responsive to tax incentives than primary earners.
6.It eliminates the stealth marginal tax rates from PEP and Pease.
7.It eliminates the estate tax, so the tax system no longer penalizes those who want to help their children and grandchildren.
8.It lowers the corporate tax rate to be close to international norms.
9.It moves from a global to a territorial tax system, like most other nations have.
10.It eliminates the deductibility of interest expenses, putting debt finance and equity finance on a more level planning field.
11.It includes full expensing of investment expenditure, moving the system toward a consumption-based tax.
12.It expands the earned income tax credit for childless taxpayers, strengthening the social safety net.

DarthSiddius
11 Sep 15,, 16:22
Thank you.Look,people beliefs are part of their identity.You attacking said beliefs by killing cows or crapping in churches may be for you a way to feed and then relief yourself.But while doing so you attack the very identity and uniqueness of those people.And for some,this can be more precious than life itself.It's not that you ignore/attack/despise God/Gods and the divinities need human help.It's because you deliberately attack people.And no,this isn't just and isn't a right.Unless you see them as foes that must be destroyed.

That's just it, from my POV I'm not attacking the very identity and uniqueness of those people. It's their belief that I might be doing those things. Don't you see? I am constrained by the level of understanding and intelligence of these people. My uniqueness and my identity are both threatened by the tyranny of the majority here which in turn is dictated by the lowest common denominator in their society. (In Kim's case it's not even that!!)


You may see your position as innocent,but it's not.To give a similar absurd example,what you say and do is like one that needs target practice and starts shooting people.It's his right do be prepared to defend himself and his family.

Follow this flowchart:

I do something --> Is it illegal? ---> Yes --> I get screwed
...........................................---> No --> Deal with it --> If you break the law --> You get screwed
.................................................. ...........................--> If it doesn't break the law --> I'll deal and so on...

antimony
11 Sep 15,, 17:00
Extremes are useful for knowing the middle road.Talking about gays,Dok had a point.If they are different,why interfere with the regular concept?
Things being different,the whole effort was easily perceived as an atack by gays on traditional institutions.I don't have a problem with gays doing their stuff in private and having legal rights respected.And by the way,not even hardcore religious figures don't really have a problem with that.
Since people respected their rights or came to respect their rights,it would have been curteous of gays to respect normal folk as well.A compromise could have been found without the whole hoopla and whatever societal problems came or will come.

Here is the problem with that.

Are gay people not equal in rights to others? If they are, why should they do their stuff in private what others do in public?



And by the way,not even hardcore religious figures don't really have a problem with that.
Since people respected their rights or came to respect their rights,it would have been curteous of gays to respect normal folk as well.A compromise could have been found without the whole hoopla and whatever societal problems came or will come.


Are you serious ("people respected their rights" my foot)? Have you not heard of Pat Robertson or the Westboro Baptist Church?

Pretty much every natural and man made disaster in the US for the past couple of decades have been blamed on gays, from Katrina to 9/11 and beyond

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/fear_the_almighty_wrath_five_natural_disasters_cau sed_by_gays/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina_as_divine_retribution



40177

DarthSiddius
11 Sep 15,, 17:04
Darth,

Good post, one correction. Kim Davis wasn't required to sign off on anyone's marriage. She had the choice of allowing one of her subordinates to do that. At least one indicated that they would. She used here position to stop her subordinates signing off on marriages & therefore blocked all marriages in her county - a job the taxpayers of that county pay her office to do. She chose to go to jail. She wanted to go to jail. She wanted to be a martyr & now she is, with all the attendant celebrity & hoopla from the Conservative Entertainment Complex & the usual suspects determined to paint Christians as an oppressed group.

I have a hard time understanding why are we even having this discussion given all that!

Doktor
11 Sep 15,, 18:08
what other elected official and what muslm card? Is it about the waitress again?

Read the post again.

antimony
11 Sep 15,, 18:23
Read the post again.

I have read it 4 times, since the comment got repeated (post #359 and #360)

tbm3fan
11 Sep 15,, 18:24
You may see your position as innocent,but it's not.To give a similar absurd example,what you say and do is like one that needs target practice and starts shooting people.It's his right do be prepared to defend himself and his family.

The two examples are not comparable

By the way did anyone catch Biden on the Late Night Show last night. Still wrestling with the question of running.

tbm3fan
11 Sep 15,, 18:27
I have a hard time understanding why are we even having this discussion given all that!

LOL, because that is what religions do...beat it or beat someone to death.

Parihaka
11 Sep 15,, 20:36
Nah, the Church co-opted the word. Having a Latin root puts it further back than 1753. As I said more legal than religious for purposes of inheritance and so forth. That act simply shows a Church trying to exert it's influence.
Perhaps you'd like to show me the govt legislation from Europe, your countries colonial and cultural heritage, prior to 1753 where the govt. held license over marriage. Or defined it. Or in fact had any control over it at all. Rather than the church?

Parihaka
11 Sep 15,, 20:46
Are you aware that Gunnut is a registered democrat? Are you aware that George Wallace was a Democrat, and so were a bunch of other southern politicians? How does her party affiliation matter? Registration as a democrat does not make you a liberal, your actions do. Her actions align with social conservatives such as Huckabee and Ted Cruz are lining up to kiss her tail.
Oh for gods sake, are you aware she stood in the democratic primaries for the position, won those, and stood as a democrat in the election, which she won. Her actions were to stand as a democrat and be elected as a democrat by democrats. AND as a Christian. Yet again, she is a democrat approved but multiple democrats who is also a Christian. Those who are religious from the right support her because they too are religious.
What is with this thing you have that democrats/liberals can't be religious?

Parihaka
11 Sep 15,, 21:07
I have a hard time understanding why are we even having this discussion given all that!

Because what he is saying isn't true, as usual.
She is not opposed to the issue of licences for gay marriages, she is opposed to the issue of those licences with her name on it.



Mat Staver, who heads the Liberty Counsel law firm that represents Davis, recently told CNN that if the state allowed for the clerk's office to issue marriage licenses that did not include her name anywhere on them, Davis' issue would be settled.read it all here, you might learn something about tolerance and faith. And not throwing people in prison because of their beliefs. Maybe.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/5-surprising-facts-about-kim-davis-144913/

DarthSiddius
11 Sep 15,, 22:22
In other news (http://cheezburger.com/627461/funny-memes-kim-davis-marriage-still-does-job)

Parihaka
11 Sep 15,, 22:28
In other news (http://cheezburger.com/627461/funny-memes-kim-davis-marriage-still-does-job)

Sure, just stop pretending your argument is true though, or expect me to take your opinion seriously.

DarthSiddius
11 Sep 15,, 22:30
Sure, just stop pretending your argument is true though, or expect me to take your opinion seriously.

That was a joke. Calm down.

DarthSiddius
11 Sep 15,, 22:34
Sure, just stop pretending your argument is true though, or expect me to take your opinion seriously.

On the other hand, you expect me to take your opinions seriously considering you implied Non-Christians can't marry a few posts ago. Still waiting for an answer.

Parihaka
11 Sep 15,, 22:49
On the other hand, you expect me to take your opinions seriously considering you implied Non-Christians can't marry a few posts ago. Still waiting for an answer.

Really? Where?

DarthSiddius
11 Sep 15,, 22:52
Really? Where?

"Is the Hindu word for marriage the same as the English word for marriage, or have you translated it?"

Are you just curious or is there a very subtle implication here?

Keep in mind the context:



It's not affecting the lives of conservatives, it's affecting the lives of religious people who may be conservatives or liberals such as Kim Davis. If it was a question of equality any ceremony that guarantees equality under law would do, but by insisting it be called marriage, it becomes an attack on the religious rite of marriage. By redefining the meaning of marriage it is a deliberate attack on religious values and those who hold them.

A Christian marriage is different from a hindu marriage. Should Hindu's be barred from being married?

DarthSiddius
11 Sep 15,, 23:01
read it all here, you might learn something about tolerance and faith. And not throwing people in prison because of their beliefs. Maybe.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/5-surprising-facts-about-kim-davis-144913/

Depends on their beliefs. There have been lots of bad people thoughout history who were put in prison because of their beliefs.

Parihaka
12 Sep 15,, 00:48
"Is the Hindu word for marriage the same as the English word for marriage, or have you translated it?"

Are you just curious or is there a very subtle implication here?

Keep in mind the context:
In answer to my question which you wouldn't answer,

A Hindu wedding is vivaha (Sanskrit: विवाह[1]) and the wedding ceremony is called vivaah sanskar
From here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_wedding
Hinduism is not Christianity and vivaah sanskar is not marriage, it is vivaah sanskar.
The religion is different, the word is different, the gods are different and the culture is different.

1: Can you point to me where the American legislation and court rulings refer specifically to vivaha, nikha etc and dictate that those practices must include gay ceremonies.

2: can you point out as I asked Tbm3fan, where legislation exists prior to the mid 1700's giving the state any right at all to dictate the nature and context of a marriage, rather than the Christian church?


Oh, and stick your "subtle implication" bullshit up your arse.

Parihaka
12 Sep 15,, 00:48
Depends on their beliefs. There have been lots of bad people thoughout history who were put in prison because of their beliefs.

So she's a bad person. Good to know.

antimony
12 Sep 15,, 01:04
Oh for gods sake, are you aware she stood in the democratic primaries for the position, won those, and stood as a democrat in the election, which she won. Her actions were to stand as a democrat and be elected as a democrat by democrats. AND as a Christian. Yet again, she is a democrat approved but multiple democrats who is also a Christian. Those who are religious from the right support her because they too are religious.
What is with this thing you have that democrats/liberals can't be religious?

Yes, I am aware and you continue to miss the point. Being a democrat does not stop you from being a conservative. Senator Byrd was one. Many of the southern democrats were bigots

antimony
12 Sep 15,, 01:17
Because what he is saying isn't true, as usual.
She is not opposed to the issue of licences for gay marriages, she is opposed to the issue of those licences with her name on it.

read it all here, you might learn something about tolerance and faith. And not throwing people in prison because of their beliefs. Maybe.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/5-surprising-facts-about-kim-davis-144913/

Right, maybe you can follow the actual news instead of getting everything from a Christian website? I have been following this news all along. The judge offered a compromise where her depities would be allowed to issue licences. She refused. Also, pleae do no mischaraterize, she has not been thrown into prison. Federal custody for contempt of court is not "prison".

DarthSiddius
12 Sep 15,, 01:46
In answer to my question which you wouldn't answer,

A Hindu wedding is vivaha (Sanskrit: विवाह[1]) and the wedding ceremony is called vivaah sanskar
From here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_wedding
Hinduism is not Christianity and vivaah sanskar is not marriage, it is vivaah sanskar.
The religion is different, the word is different, the gods are different and the culture is different.

1: Can you point to me where the American legislation and court rulings refer specifically to vivaha, nikha etc and dictate that those practices must include gay ceremonies.

2: can you point out as I asked Tbm3fan, where legislation exists prior to the mid 1700's giving the state any right at all to dictate the nature and context of a marriage, rather than the Christian church?


The Indian marriage certificate has the word marriage in it. So does a Canadian or one from New Zealand. I have cousins and friends (all married, all Hindu) living in all these countries. It doesn't say that it is a 'Vivaah Sanskar' certificate.


So she's a bad person. Good to know.

Kim was required to approve a legal document not a social or a religious one. She didn't nor was required to perform the religious rite of marriage as you put it. She's not a bad person but a terribly misguided one who broke the law.

Do you even for a second consider the humiliation and disappointment the couple(s) must have faced and experienced when Kim refused to process their certificate? Are you this arrogant to agree with a person who not only refused to do her duty but disrespected a court of law just because her stand on marriage seems to fit your's?


Oh, and stick your "subtle implication" bullshit up your arse.

I'll leave it to the others to decipher what you may or may not have implied.

Firestorm
12 Sep 15,, 02:07
In answer to my question which you wouldn't answer,

A Hindu wedding is vivaha (Sanskrit: विवाह[1]) and the wedding ceremony is called vivaah sanskar
From here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_wedding
Hinduism is not Christianity and vivaah sanskar is not marriage, it is vivaah sanskar.
The religion is different, the word is different, the gods are different and the culture is different.

1: Can you point to me where the American legislation and court rulings refer specifically to vivaha, nikha etc and dictate that those practices must include gay ceremonies.

This is frickin hilarious. Every language has a different word for marriage. A couple's religion or native language makes no difference to the legal status of their union in the US. It is still considered to be "marriage", even if the ceremony itself is called "vivaah" or "nikah" or anything else. Hindu couples get married in the US all the time, in traditional "vivaah" ceremonies. At the end they are treated on par with a couple who marries in the Christian or any other way. They still need a "Marriage License" , even if the ceremony is referred to by another name. And afterwards they get the same legal rights (e.g. tax benefits etc.) as a Christian couple. That is not the case for Civil unions. States can and do have different laws regarding marriages and civil unions.

Oh, and BTW, Two gay Indian American men of Malayalee origin get married in California (http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2015/04/14/two-gay-indian-american-men-of-malayalee-origin-get-married-in-california/)

They got married in the traditional Hindu way.

And your argument raises the question: Should a county clerk be allowed to refuse "Marriage Licenses" to Hindu couples, because the Hindu "Vivaah" ceremony is not the same as a Christian "Marriage" and/or her beliefs are against letting Hindus marry?

DarthSiddius
12 Sep 15,, 02:15
And your argument raises the question: Should a county clerk be allowed to refuse "Marriage Licenses" to Hindu couples, because the Hindu "Vivaah" ceremony is not the same as a Christian "Marriage" and/or her beliefs are against letting Hindus marry?

He's been dodging this question so far.

tbm3fan
12 Sep 15,, 02:28
Perhaps you'd like to show me the govt legislation from Europe, your countries colonial and cultural heritage, prior to 1753 where the govt. held license over marriage. Or defined it. Or in fact had any control over it at all. Rather than the church?

Remember you were the one who basically said the word had religious background. I said not so since the word has Latin origins which put it back B.C. or before Christ. So no religious origins by an organized church. Of course, the Latin word was not "marriage" which seems to be your sticking point as if it really matters how one spells the word. It could have 100 different versions which when translated all mean the same thing. So unlike McDonalds the Church does not own the word.

Aztecs married. Incas married. Greeks married. Egyptians married all before Christ. All were for political, military, economic reasons. Ergo, legal.

So no I don't have a case to prove as it is you who have to prove beyond doubt that the word is religious starting during the time of Christianity. Good luck since as far as I am concerned marriage predates recorded history.

Parihaka
12 Sep 15,, 03:13
Remember you were the one who basically said the word had religious background. I said not so since the word has Latin origins which put it back B.C. or before Christ. So no religious origins by an organized church. Of course, the Latin word was not "marriage" which seems to be your sticking point as if it really matters how one spells the word. It could have 100 different versions which when translated all mean the same thing. So unlike McDonalds the Church does not own the word.And of course trace it back to Ug as he first climbed out of a tree and muttered "ohhgaah"


Aztecs married. Incas married. Greeks married. Egyptians married all before Christ. All were for political, military, economic reasons. Ergo, legal.

So no I don't have a case to prove as it is you who have to prove beyond doubt that the word is religious starting during the time of Christianity. Good luck since as far as I am concerned marriage predates recorded history.
Are you Roman? Byzantine, Carolingian? All those empires have come and gone, but from 380 AD the only continuous authority for marriage was the christian church. Until 1753.

As for the Aztecs, Incas, Greeks, Egyptians etc, what types of unions, what gods, and what did they call those unions? Who officiated?

The Christian Church, wherever the word originated from, co-opted the root word from the Etruscan and made it their own throughout Christendom for nigh on 2000 years, outlasting every civil society and empire within christendom in the process. By track record so far, when the US is long gone, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam will all still be holding their ceremonies, using their specific words to describe those ceremonies.

Here's an experiment for you. Instead of insisting gay marriage be called gay marriage, insist it be call gay Nikah and get back to me.

antimony
12 Sep 15,, 03:15
Kim was required to approve a legal document not a social or a religious one. She didn't nor was required to perform the religious rite of marriage as you put it. She's not a bad person but a terribly misguided one who broke the law.
.

Actually, before she wa s bundled off, all the judge required was that she not be a spanner in the works. The judge was ok with her not having anything to do with licenses as long as she didn't stop others. She disagreed with that too. She is out now based on that condition.

Also, more than breaking a law, she was in contempt of court

Parihaka
12 Sep 15,, 03:28
The Indian marriage certificate has the word marriage in it. So does a Canadian or one from New Zealand. I have cousins and friends (all married, all Hindu) living in all these countries. It doesn't say that it is a 'Vivaah Sanskar' certificate.
Yes it does, because just like Canada and New Zealand, you inherited the English legal system, so you no longer get to use Hindi as your official language. As fine an example of the State usurping what was a religious ceremony that I can think of. Thank you.



Kim was required to approve a legal document not a social or a religious one. She didn't nor was required to perform the religious rite of marriage as you put it. She's not a bad person but a terribly misguided one who broke the law.You'd rather put her in prison than change the rules (as is now happening) to let the other clerks in the office sign. Talk about hate.


Do you even for a second consider the humiliation and disappointment the couple(s) must have faced and experienced when Kim refused to process their certificate? Are you this arrogant to agree with a person who not only refused to do her duty but disrespected a court of law just because her stand on marriage seems to fit your's?Oh for fucks sake, for the millionth time on this forum I'm not christian nor ever have been, nor muslim nor hindu nor zoroastrian nor any other beliefs.
What I do believe in is not deliberately baiting religions and faiths for shits and giggles, which is what the US legislation, supporters and court ruling do by calling gay unions "marriage". As I've already asked, why don't they try calling it gay Nikah or gay vivaah sanskar and get back to me about how that goes.




I'll leave it to the others to decipher what you may or may not have implied.
Well fuck you.

Parihaka
12 Sep 15,, 03:32
This is frickin hilarious. Every language has a different word for marriage. A couple's religion or native language makes no difference to the legal status of their union in the US. It is still considered to be "marriage", even if the ceremony itself is called "vivaah" or "nikah" or anything else. Hindu couples get married in the US all the time, in traditional "vivaah" ceremonies. At the end they are treated on par with a couple who marries in the Christian or any other way. They still need a "Marriage License" , even if the ceremony is referred to by another name. And afterwards they get the same legal rights (e.g. tax benefits etc.) as a Christian couple. That is not the case for Civil unions. States can and do have different laws regarding marriages and civil unions.

Oh, and BTW, Two gay Indian American men of Malayalee origin get married in California (http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2015/04/14/two-gay-indian-american-men-of-malayalee-origin-get-married-in-california/)

They got married in the traditional Hindu way.

And your argument raises the question: Should a county clerk be allowed to refuse "Marriage Licenses" to Hindu couples, because the Hindu "Vivaah" ceremony is not the same as a Christian "Marriage" and/or her beliefs are against letting Hindus marry?

Sooooo, what you're saying in your own long winded and arrogant way is the the US government has usurped the rites of union from a number of different religions, taken the Christian term for that union (remember Christianity long predates the United States of America) and imposed it's own definition of what that union is.

Parihaka
12 Sep 15,, 03:36
Actually, before she wa s bundled off, all the judge required was that she not be a spanner in the works. The judge was ok with her not having anything to do with licenses as long as she didn't stop others. She disagreed with that too. She is out now based on that condition.

Also, more than breaking a law, she was in contempt of court

If you'd bothered reading the case rather than pontificating like all the other liberals here, she refused to issue any marriage certificates, not just to gay couples, until such time as she would not have to put her signature on marriage certificates for gays. In other words, the Judge required her signature to be on it.
She was perfectly happy for her office to issue certificates with other clerks signatures on it. Kind of like Sepoys not wanting to bite cartridges that might have pork fat on them.

tbm3fan
12 Sep 15,, 03:41
Are you Roman? Byzantine, Carolingian? All those empires have come and gone, but from 380 AD the only continuous authority for marriage was the christian church. Until 1753.



That is your argument. Continuous authority? Who is left and who isn't? Who the hell cares as I don't see how that even gives them ownership. Made it their own? Obviously China and Japan weren't around during those 2000 years being influenced by their Confucian views on marriage.

I see it as taking it, poaching (usurped) it if you will, to use for their purposes. Purposes which are clearly evident today in thinking they can say who can do what with whom.

Parihaka
12 Sep 15,, 03:54
That is your argument. Continuous authority? Who is left and who isn't? Who the hell cares as I don't see how that even gives them ownership. Made it their own? Obviously China and Japan weren't around during those 2000 years being influenced by their Confucian views on marriage.

I see it as taking it, poaching (usurped) it if you will, to use for their purposes. Purposes which are clearly evident today in thinking they can say who can do what with whom.

And again, China and Japan didn't use the word marriage for their unions. Why are you so insistent that the word marriage be used? Why not civil union or family pairing or family union of whatever? Answer? Well none of those terms would piss the Christians off, would they.

Parihaka
12 Sep 15,, 04:14
That is your argument. Continuous authority?
And oh yes. In a nutshell. We'd term them customary rights under common law here in NZ.

GVChamp
12 Sep 15,, 04:45
I don't think either Parihaka or I are religious. I'll ask my Wife when she comes back.

You can be Conservative and want to respect the individual consciences of religious people without being religious yourself. From my perspective, I do not want the American government to pick a fight with the Church, because the American government will lose, just like the Soviet government and, in its own way, the Roman government. This has severely negative implications for the well-being of me and my descendants. Folks like you and antimony and tb are calling religion brainwashing. You're picking a fight. Please don't drag my hard-won liberties into your pointless religious qualms. I quite like my freedoms and don't want to lose them when the Church inevitably grinds you into dust.

I am also annoyed about how bad the Church is and Separation of Church and State and yadda yadda, when the West was founded on the ALLIANCE of Church and State, not the separation. I would say this is just an academic point because it happened so long ago, but it really isn't, because the people picking a fight with the Church now have no idea how humans operate and how we created our Civilization in the first place.

This is probably not immediately relevant but this will play out over the next century, and mismanaging the Church-State relationship will have devastating consequences. And not for the Church.

Mihais
12 Sep 15,, 07:18
To carry on GV's point,the Church is at its best when challenged.This can be seen in ancient history,but we saw it live in action in the 50's during the heights of the commie persecutions.There were plenty of role models of dignity and decency under overwhelming odds.Some of those fellows are proposed to be sanctified.Faith is a powerful force,and small number of genuine believers can withstand more adversities than a large number of non-believers.It's a fact of life.

Right now,there is a growth of atheism.Lack of need,fashion and propaganda converge to help this.But the hard core of the faithfull can't be destroyed by arguments,because they have good arguments themselves and it can't be destroyed by force.
There are plenty of different situations.But in the East,medium and long term,we need Christianity to help defeat islam.Otherwise,everyone can take the freedoms and rights,which are ultimateley descended from the Christian tradition of Europe anyway,and use them as toilet paper.

antimony
12 Sep 15,, 08:12
If you'd bothered reading the case rather than pontificating like all the other liberals here, she refused to issue any marriage certificates, not just to gay couples, until such time as she would not have to put her signature on marriage certificates for gays. In other words, the Judge required her signature to be on it.
She was perfectly happy for her office to issue certificates with other clerks signatures on it. Kind of like Sepoys not wanting to bite cartridges that might have pork fat on them.

Pari, for heavens sake, read the news. She was not willing to have her deputie issue licences. She rejected that compromise. She is out now because regardless of hat she says, the deputies are not issuing licences.

Oh by the way, I have zero respect for sepys who were not averse to killing heir countrymen but drew the line at a perceived insult of their faith. Please do not bait me.

antimony
12 Sep 15,, 08:16
I don't think either Parihaka or I are religious. I'll ask my Wife when she comes back.

You can be Conservative and want to respect the individual consciences of religious people without being religious yourself. From my perspective, I do not want the American government to pick a fight with the Church, because the American government will lose, just like the Soviet government and, in its own way, the Roman government. This has severely negative implications for the well-being of me and my descendants. Folks like you and antimony and tb are calling religion brainwashing. You're picking a fight. Please don't drag my hard-won liberties into your pointless religious qualms. I quite like my freedoms and don't want to lose them when the Church inevitably grinds you into dust.

I am also annoyed about how bad the Church is and Separation of Church and State and yadda yadda, when the West was founded on the ALLIANCE of Church and State, not the separation. I would say this is just an academic point because it happened so long ago, but it really isn't, because the people picking a fight with the Church now have no idea how humans operate and how we created our Civilization in the first place.

This is probably not immediately relevant but this will play out over the next century, and mismanaging the Church-State relationship will have devastating consequences. And not for the Church.

You are free to stay under the boots of the church while others fight for their liberties. I have seen a lot of social ills promulgated by religion go away over the past 200 years without coming back, and I expect to see more.

antimony
12 Sep 15,, 08:20
To carry on GV's point,the Church is at its best when challenged.This can be seen in ancient history,but we saw it live in action in the 50's during the heights of the commie persecutions.There were plenty of role models of dignity and decency under overwhelming odds.Some of those fellows are proposed to be sanctified.Faith is a powerful force,and small number of genuine believers can withstand more adversities than a large number of non-believers.It's a fact of life.

Right now,there is a growth of atheism.Lack of need,fashion and propaganda converge to help this.But the hard core of the faithfull can't be destroyed by arguments,because they have good arguments themselves and it can't be destroyed by force.
There are plenty of different situations.But in the East,medium and long term,we need Christianity to help defeat islam.Otherwise,everyone can take the freedoms and rights,which are ultimateley descended from the Christian tradition of Europe anyway,and use them as toilet paper.

Unlike the commies, the atheists do not persecute religons, regardless of how strident the cries of "Christianity is under threat" are.

Christianity and Islam? Yeah, does not seem like Christianity is winning. You want to defeat Islam? put a stop to the Saudi Wahabi money trail.

Mihais
12 Sep 15,, 08:35
Commies were atheists.And when they stopped using prisons they used the same words and behaved the same as non-commie atheists.
As for the fight going on,buy more popcorn and get ready to be entertained.

Doktor
12 Sep 15,, 08:39
Commies were atheists.And when they stopped using prisons they used the same words and behaved the same as non-commie atheists.
As for the fight going on,buy more popcorn and get ready to be entertained.

Wonder which side the gays will choose. There will be a point where they wont be in a position to stay aside.

antimony
12 Sep 15,, 08:42
Yes it does, because just like Canada and New Zealand, you inherited the English legal system, so you no longer get to use Hindi as your official language. As fine an example of the State usurping what was a religious ceremony that I can think of. Thank you.


A little knowedge can be a dangerous thing.

Hindi is an official language of India. Hindus can get married as per the Hindu Marriage Act, which is different from the Special Marriages Act. Also, hindus can get married wthout a formal registration process, the social/ religous rites are sufficient. Please note this : a Hindu social marriage without registration is valid because registration is not compulsory under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.


You'd rather put her in prison than change the rules (as is now happening) to let the other clerks in the office sign. Talk about hate.


It is not prision, it is Federal Custody for contempt of court. She is not being charged with any crime. And she was the one who did not let her clerks sign.

Mihais
12 Sep 15,, 10:37
Wonder which side the gays will choose. There will be a point where they wont be in a position to stay aside.

Bro,I don't know and I don't care.I care only about relevant groups.1/200 or whatever ratio they are is way too puny to matter.
Combat ain't democracy.

antimony
12 Sep 15,, 20:26
Commies were atheists.And when they stopped using prisons they used the same words and behaved the same as non-commie atheists.
As for the fight going on,buy more popcorn and get ready to be entertained.

Oh come on, criticism and debate is the same as persecution now? Who's rounding up the Christians in the middle of the night and sending them off in brown lorries to labur camps?

Parihaka
12 Sep 15,, 20:50
Pari, for heavens sake, read the news. She was not willing to have her deputie issue licences. She rejected that compromise. She is out now because regardless of hat she says, the deputies are not issuing licences.

Oh by the way, I have zero respect for sepys who were not averse to killing heir countrymen but drew the line at a perceived insult of their faith. Please do not bait me.




It is not prision, it is Federal Custody for contempt of court. She is not being charged with any crime. And she was the one who did not let her clerks sign.
Because, until the rules were changed, they signed HER name to it, as I've reiterated again and again.
I know you refuse to believe the link I provided before because it was written by a Christian so here's wiki citing local press
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)

I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's Word.[39] Emphasis mine.

Further

Bunning's order requires Davis' deputy clerks to comply with his earlier order to issue marriage licences and to submit status reports confirming their compliance to him every fourteen days.[44][45] Deputy clerks have released statements pledging to continue issuing licenses after Davis' release and have stated plans to ignore any order from her to do otherwise, complying with the federal judge's order.[46][47] Licenses issued since Davis' refusal state that the license is authorized by "the office of the Rowan County Clerk" but no longer bear her name.[48] Davis supporters who gathered at the Rowan County Courthouse said that her deputies were unlawfully issuing licenses and should resign or be fired.[49][50]

So, a simple legislative tweak allowed someone with strong moral convictions the ability to do her job. Difficult? No.
So why have liberals been joyously celebrating and defending her "oh no not in prison" incarceration?

Parihaka
12 Sep 15,, 20:54
Wonder which side the gays will choose. There will be a point where they wont be in a position to stay aside.

Depends on their political aspirations. Like Christians, gays come in all political spectrums

Mihais
12 Sep 15,, 21:29
Oh come on, criticism and debate is the same as persecution now? Who's rounding up the Christians in the middle of the night and sending them off in brown lorries to labur camps?

The key idea is that there were 2 distinct phases.And frankly speaking there is no debate.It's labelling and straw men.When I say that commies of the 60's,70's and 80's used the same words as liberals of today I mean exactly that.

Doktor
12 Sep 15,, 22:41
Depends on their political aspirations. Like Christians, gays come in all political spectrums

Was speaking on Islam. That was the topoc d'jeur.

antimony
13 Sep 15,, 17:35
Because, until the rules were changed, they signed HER name to it, as I've reiterated again and again.
I know you refuse to believe the link I provided before because it was written by a Christian so here's wiki citing local press
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)
Emphasis mine.

Further
So, a simple legislative tweak allowed someone with strong moral convictions the ability to do her job. Difficult? No.
So why have liberals been joyously celebrating and defending her "oh no not in prison" incarceration?

So why could she not have agreed to this compromise before her incarceration? As far as I can see it, the incarceraton did its job. She is out of the picture now, and she could have achieve the same result earlier without the drama. She is a fame hog and wants the limelight. I am sure there is a book deal down there somewhere.

antimony
13 Sep 15,, 17:43
The key idea is that there were 2 distinct phases.And frankly speaking there is no debate.It's labelling and straw men.When I say that commies of the 60's,70's and 80's used the same words as liberals of today I mean exactly that.

The key idea is that you said that Christians are being persecuted and they will strike back. When I asked "what persecution" you said "mean words". Boo hoo. Big deal.

Atheists are routinly treated much much worse. They are compared to rapists and murderers and some of the Right wing darlings have sprouted rape and murder fantasies about aheists families in order to show them the light. Still, no one is crying persecution.

Mihais
13 Sep 15,, 18:30
I quite clearly made a distinction violent persecution and propaganda.The rest is you putting words in my mouth.

Parihaka
13 Sep 15,, 20:19
So why could she not have agreed to this compromise before her incarceration? As far as I can see it, the incarceraton did its job. She is out of the picture now, and she could have achieve the same result earlier without the drama. She is a fame hog and wants the limelight. I am sure there is a book deal down there somewhere.i have no idea. What I'm doing is countering each bullshit statement your'e putting out, starting with Kim Davis being a conservative. Remember?

antimony
14 Sep 15,, 06:35
i have no idea. What I'm doing is countering each bullshit statement your'e putting out, starting with Kim Davis being a conservative. Remember?

Yes, and in your uninformed views a Democrat is always liberal. Thats what is known as bullshit. this gal as all the conservative candidates lined up to kiss her back and she is apparently a liberal

antimony
14 Sep 15,, 06:51
I quite clearly made a distinction violent persecution and propaganda.The rest is you putting words in my mouth.

Right, so the propaganda will make the Christian church rise up and strike down the liberties of everyone around. Is that the gist?

Doktor
14 Sep 15,, 08:06
Yes, and in your uninformed views a Democrat is always liberal. Thats what is known as bullshit. this gal as all the conservative candidates lined up to kiss her back and she is apparently a liberal

Are you saying those Dems against gay marriages are not Dems?
Even senators?

Parihaka
14 Sep 15,, 11:26
Yes, and in your uninformed views a Democrat is always liberal. Thats what is known as bullshit. this gal as all the conservative candidates lined up to kiss her back and she is apparently a liberal

Yes she is. Ran as a democrat in the democrat primaries, stood as a democrat and was elected as a democrat, remember? Oh and in answer to your prior question, the governor wouldn't call back the senate or whatever to chsnge the legislation just for her so the clerks who are signing the registration without her name on it are technically breaking the law. No one seems to mind that though, including the judge who bunged her in jail.

antimony
14 Sep 15,, 16:44
Are you saying those Dems against gay marriages are not Dems?
Even senators?

Again with the Dems. The Dems is a party. If a Dem is aganst progressiv ideals then he or she is probably not liberal. That would be a big clue. There are Republicans who are progressive, there are conservatives who vote democratic

gunnut
14 Sep 15,, 21:12
Again with the Dems. The Dems is a party. If a Dem is aganst progressiv ideals then he or she is probably not liberal. That would be a big clue. There are Republicans who are progressive, there are conservatives who vote democratic

I'm a registered democrat...

Where is that big grin emoticon?

antimony
14 Sep 15,, 21:14
I'm a registered democrat...

Where is that big grin emoticon?

Nothings seems to work anymore, including the Like button or the emoticons :(( (big sad face)

tantalus
14 Sep 15,, 21:28
I'm a registered democrat...

Where is that big grin emoticon?

The day you registered sounds like a day worth hearing about...

Doktor
14 Sep 15,, 21:57
The day you registered sounds like a day worth hearing about...

I think it's worth a separate thread. But, of coirse he can't tell us.

Doktor
14 Sep 15,, 21:59
From AM's posts and presented fact, I get the idea that the US liberals are either so progressive they went stealth or they are so advanced they decided to mock both parties.

GVChamp
14 Sep 15,, 22:06
You are free to stay under the boots of the church while others fight for their liberties. I have seen a lot of social ills promulgated by religion go away over the past 200 years without coming back, and I expect to see more.

Lol, you're going to fight now? You're "fighting" a legal "battle". Courts are for adjudication of internal disputes. That means you are engaged in Friendly Fire.

People who are engaged in massive undertakings do not rally to the banner of Secular Humanism. Soldiers under Napoleon fought for France, sailors under Nelson fought for Britain, soldiers under Stalin fought for Russia. That's hard-core nationalism, you just substituted one ill for another.


Re: 200 years. That's less time than there's been an Industrial Revolution. Rome in 0-200 went from ridiculously unstable to Pretty Awesome Military Dictatorship, and then in 200-400 went from Pretty Awesome Military Dictatorship to OH MY GOD EVERYONE IS DYING AND THERE ARE BARBARIANS EVERYWHERE AND WHAT THE HELL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!

200 years. Bwahahahahahahaahahahaahha.

antimony
14 Sep 15,, 22:57
Lol, you're going to fight now? You're "fighting" a legal "battle". Courts are for adjudication of internal disputes. That means you are engaged in Friendly Fire.

People who are engaged in massive undertakings do not rally to the banner of Secular Humanism. Soldiers under Napoleon fought for France, sailors under Nelson fought for Britain, soldiers under Stalin fought for Russia. That's hard-core nationalism, you just substituted one ill for another.


Re: 200 years. That's less time than there's been an Industrial Revolution. Rome in 0-200 went from ridiculously unstable to Pretty Awesome Military Dictatorship, and then in 200-400 went from Pretty Awesome Military Dictatorship to OH MY GOD EVERYONE IS DYING AND THERE ARE BARBARIANS EVERYWHERE AND WHAT THE HELL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!

200 years. Bwahahahahahahaahahahaahha.

Laugh all you want. In my own country, I have seen sati, the caste system/ untouchability, dowry, child marriage, polygamy, female infanticide come under fire and/ or get banned. Do some of those covertly go on? Yes, in a country as diverse and populous as India, some of these (dowry, child marriage, caste system) have endured but as society is opening up they are getting pushed down further. No one is taking to the streets in support of untouchability. If semiliterate and poor country like India can progress, the US can do something simpler like a gay marriage.

Officer of Engineers
15 Sep 15,, 04:44
If semiliterate and poor country like India can progress, the US can do something simpler like a gay marriage.Seriously? WHY? WHY AM I FORCED TO ACCEPT THINGS THAT I FIND INTOLERABLE?

Behind closed doors, that's your business but why am I forced to openly accept things that I can't fucking stand!

I can't stand the KKK, the Nazi Party, and by the same token gays and pedaphiles but as long as their actions don't harm anyone else, (imagination is imagination and I will not prosecute anyone for imagination) I will tolerate them BUT WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I ACCEPT THEM?

antimony
15 Sep 15,, 04:54
Seriously? WHY? WHY AM I FORCED TO ACCEPT THINGS THAT I FIND INTOLERABLE?

Behind closed doors, that's your business but why am I forced to openly accept things that I can't fucking stand!

I can't stand the KKK, the Nazi Party, and by the same token gays and pedaphiles but as long as their actions don't harm anyone else, (imagination is imagination and I will not prosecute anyone for imagination) I will tolerate them BUT WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I ACCEPT THEM?

Don't accept them if you do not want to. Don't talk to them, ignore them or cross the road if you see them. But you cannot deny them their rights.

And by the way, pedophiles harm children. Do not equate them to gays.

Mihais
15 Sep 15,, 06:38
Good Lord.This crap again.200 years is really too little.Besides,look at the last 50.You need a sustainable society and whatever crap has been going on is unsustainable.You can't replace family with bureaucracy and you certainly can't replace children with migrants or you die.And you need a whole set of values that support the said sustainable ideology.Yeah,you're pretty prepared to ruin everything just because the x minority nobody heard about 20 years ago is ''discriminated''.Tough luck,chap.Reality and history don't work that way,even if it takes generations for the obvious to become painful.
And what is quite annoying at you,guys,is complete lack of tolerance.''In the name of tolerance,you are condemned by the Party .You're an enemy of the People.''

Fvck that ,dude,I've seen enough of it.You're no better than those comrades.You're just smug enough to think you are.

antimony
15 Sep 15,, 06:45
Good Lord.This crap again.200 years is really too little.Besides,look at the last 50.You need a sustainable society and whatever crap has been going on is unsustainable.You can't replace family with bureaucracy and you certainly can't replace children with migrants or you die.And you need a whole set of values that support the said sustainable ideology.Yeah,you're pretty prepared to ruin everything just because the x minority nobody heard about 20 years ago is ''discriminated''.Tough luck,chap.Reality and history don't work that way,even if it takes generations for the obvious to become painful.
And what is quite annoying at you,guys,is complete lack of tolerance.''In the name of tolerance,you are condemned by the Party .You're an enemy of the People.''

Fvck that ,dude,I've seen enough of it.You're no better than those comrades.You're just smug enough to think you are.

What the fuck are you talking about? Replacing children with migrants, replacing family with bureaucracy, where does any of that come from? I think I was very clear that Europe should not be responsible for the migrants.

Doktor
15 Sep 15,, 10:04
Sometimes it seems hard to follow EE's thoughts.

Children with migrants - we have a negative demographics, let's get more people from abroad.

Family with bureaucrats - head of the family, the one who decides whatever is in family's best interest os someone holding a position, not from the family. You must be on the grid, you must have a healthcare coverage, you must go to this school...

Mihais
15 Sep 15,, 10:42
What the fuck are you talking about? Replacing children with migrants, replacing family with bureaucracy, where does any of that come from? I think I was very clear that Europe should not be responsible for the migrants.

Dude,you were talking of 200 years of whatever.Point is the last 50 years of reforms suck.And if you don't see the effects of this major societal fvckup that ''progressives'' brought us,not my fault.

antimony
15 Sep 15,, 16:07
Dude,you were talking of 200 years of whatever.Point is the last 50 years of reforms suck.And if you don't see the effects of this major societal fvckup that ''progressives'' brought us,not my fault.

Right.

Universal suffrage, civil rights, women's empowerment; they all suck. Stick wth that

And stop putting words in my mouth

antimony
15 Sep 15,, 16:08
Sometimes it seems hard to follow EE's thoughts.

Children with migrants - we have a negative demographics, let's get more people from abroad.

Family with bureaucrats - head of the family, the one who decides whatever is in family's best interest os someone holding a position, not from the family. You must be on the grid, you must have a healthcare coverage, you must go to this school...

Whatever, I did not say any of that

Firestorm
15 Sep 15,, 18:48
Sooooo, what you're saying in your own long winded and arrogant way is the the US government has usurped the rites of union from a number of different religions, taken the Christian term for that union (remember Christianity long predates the United States of America) and imposed it's own definition of what that union is.

And yet, NO ONE from ANY of these religions is complaining. In fact, the gays want the US government to impose the same definition on their unions too. And now it does. The only person who thinks this is somehow unfair or illegal is you it seems.

GVChamp
15 Sep 15,, 20:09
What the fuck are you talking about? Replacing children with migrants, replacing family with bureaucracy, where does any of that come from? I think I was very clear that Europe should not be responsible for the migrants.

This isn't about you and your belief system specifically. This is about you attacking Tradition, and what actually happens to Society when you attack Tradition, instead of what you think SHOULD happen if everyone adopts your beliefs.

For example, you are against Child Marriage. Great, so am I. You are an economic libertarian, or something like that, right? Great. I lean towards that direction.

What actually happens when marriage rates decline? In the US, single people vote for Big Government Dems by margins of 2 and 3 and 4 to 1. That's the actual concrete result of your anti-tradition beliefs: Bernie Sanders!

Similarly your assault on Tradition and championship of Secular Humanism has watered down the in-group identities of European groups, which has a great effect of not starting wars between France and Germany, and the negative effect of the stupid Eurozone monetary policy and not being able to control migrant populations. That's the direct result of your Secular Humanism.

By the way, regarding semi-literate, the West started off worse than India is right now, and, again, it advanced, through the ALLIANCE of Church and State, for about 1000 years.

Parihaka
15 Sep 15,, 20:28
And yet, NO ONE from ANY of these religions is complaining. In fact, the gays want the US government to impose the same definition on their unions too. And now it does. The only person who thinks this is somehow unfair or illegal is you it seems.

Except of course the Christians. Remember I'm not a Christian, I simply empathis with them having their traditions subverted to mean something different and having that change forced on them.

DarthSiddius
15 Sep 15,, 20:58
Except of course the Christians. Remember I'm not a Christian, I simply empathis with them having their traditions subverted to mean something different and having that change forced on them.

Let me try this again. How is the change forced on them? The US government is not telling the church to change it's definition of marriage. It's only the legal interpretation that is being changed which the government is well within its right to do, isn't it? It's only following past precedent, marriage certificates are after all issued to other religions, they are even issued to atheists. Why make concessions that affect everyone (irrespective of their belief) in order to placate a singular religion?

Either do that or relinquish control over the word 'marriage' and issue different certificates as per the various ceremonies and practices prevalent in the other belief systems.

GVChamp
15 Sep 15,, 21:36
Why make concessions that affect everyone (irrespective of their belief) in order to placate a singular religion?

It's called Democracy, man. The Church can't define Marriage, but the Parishioners, in their capacity as Citizens, can Petition their Government to make Law in accordance with their preferences.

There are certain limitations in accordance with the Constitution and subsequent Amendments, none of which mention anything about Homosexual partnerships. Legally, the Court, and in this case I mean His Majesty Anthony Kennedy, is forcing his views on the People, which does happen to include the Parishioners.

Doktor
15 Sep 15,, 21:50
Right.

Universal suffrage, civil rights, women's empowerment; they all suck. Stick wth that

And stop putting words in my mouth

The church bamned those things?

Firestorm
15 Sep 15,, 22:27
Except of course the Christians. Remember I'm not a Christian, I simply empathis with them having their traditions subverted to mean something different and having that change forced on them.

Christian traditions have not been subverted. Gays aren't asking the Church to recognize their marriages. They only want the federal and state governments to do so.

Secondly, the Church does not have a copyright on the English word "marriage". If they do, and can prove it in a court of law, then I would agree that gays would not have a right to be "married" and will have to make do with "civil unions" or something similar. The same will of course then apply to every non-Christian straight couple in the US as well unless the Church makes an exception for their ceremonies.

SteveDaPirate
15 Sep 15,, 22:39
Legally, the Court, and in this case I mean His Majesty Anthony Kennedy, is forcing his views on the People, which does happen to include the Parishioners.

Except that according to the Pew Research Center (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/), his views are in line with the majority of the People. Said views are also only the views of the State, not private individuals or religious organizations.

Parihaka
15 Sep 15,, 23:27
Let me try this again. How is the change forced on them? The US government is not telling the church to change it's definition of marriage. It's only the legal interpretation that is being changed which the government is well within its right to do, isn't it? It's only following past precedent, marriage certificates are after all issued to other religions, they are even issued to atheists. Why make concessions that affect everyone (irrespective of their belief) in order to placate a singular religion?

Either do that or relinquish control over the word 'marriage' and issue different certificates as per the various ceremonies and practices pWrevalent in the other belief systems.
Why should Christians make concessions? There's certainly no concessions being offered to them.

Parihaka
15 Sep 15,, 23:32
Christian traditions have not been subverted. Gays aren't asking the Church to recognize their marriages. They only want the federal and state governments to do so. that would be why fully half of the marriage licenses (which may well be invalid since the local ordinance requires Kim Davis personal signature on them) have been made out to gay couples, some of whom have travelled from San Francisco specifically to have that office do it.


Secondly, the Church does not have a copyright on the English word "marriage". If they do, and can prove it in a court of law, then I would agree that gays would not have a right to be "married" and will have to make do with "civil unions" or something similar. The same will of course then apply to every non-Christian straight couple in the US as well unless the Church makes an exception for their ceremonies.
Indeed they do not, the govt has progressively subsumed 'marriage' entirely to itself, which is the point as far as Christians are concerned.

GVChamp
15 Sep 15,, 23:43
Except that according to the Pew Research Center (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/), his views are in line with the majority of the People. Said views are also only the views of the State, not private individuals or religious organizations.

I was expecting this argument at some point. What if the Majority Opinion changes in 20 years? Can we then "undiscover" this newly found Constitutional right? What other Constitutional rights should be subject to public opinion polls?

Majority opinion is not how Constitutional rights work. The majority of the nation is in favor of seat belt laws. It is not the place of the Court to mandate Seat Belt Laws in accordance with the newly discovered 9th Amendment Privilege "Justice Kennedy Wants To Feel Important and #OnTheRightSideOfHistory"

If you have a majority opinion, great: pass a law. Don't legislate from the bench. If you have a super-majority opinion, EVEN BETTER! Pass an amendment! The Constitution was set-up with an Amendment process specifically for this reason, which the Courts are subverting because Harvard graduates know best.

DarthSiddius
15 Sep 15,, 23:52
Why should Christians make concessions? There's certainly no concessions being offered to them.

Two things at play here.

Firstly, are the Christians really making concessions?

Secondly, if they indeed are, do we force everyone else to concede just so the Christians no longer have to make these concessions?

Firestorm
15 Sep 15,, 23:53
that would be why fully half of the marriage licenses (which may well be invalid since the local ordinance requires Kim Davis personal signature on them) have been made out to gay couples, some of whom have travelled from San Francisco specifically to have that office do it.

So? How does that subvert Christian traditions? That is a government office, not a Church.



Indeed they do not, the govt has progressively subsumed 'marriage' entirely to itself, which is the point as far as Christians are concerned.
If the Church wants to decide who gets married or how, the people of the US need to make a constitutional amendment that declares the USA as a Christian country with Christianity as its state religion. As long as that isn't the case, the government cannot let one religious institution which does not have any legislative, executive or judicial power dictate which marriages are valid and which ones aren't.

If the US is in fact declared a Christian country, you won't get any argument from me even if they summarily ban gay marriages, or Hindu marriages or Muslim marriages or whatever else they may want to ban.

Parihaka
16 Sep 15,, 00:35
Two things at play here.

Firstly, are the Christians really making concessions?they don't have any choice, it's legislated, remember?


Secondly, if they indeed are, do we force everyone else to concede just so the Christians no longer have to make these concessions?whats wrong with calling gay unions civil unions? Why are only liberals allowed to make the rules?

DarthSiddius
16 Sep 15,, 00:42
whats wrong with calling gay unions civil unions? Why are only liberals allowed to make the rules?

Nothing wrong with it. The word itself IMHO is superficial, the idea should be to get the same status, legally speaking, that a married couple enjoy.

TopHatter
16 Sep 15,, 00:43
Why are only liberals allowed to make the rules?

Because they're the only ones who are right.

Parihaka
16 Sep 15,, 00:55
Like^



So? How does that subvert Christian traditions? That is a government office, not a Church.

So why is that office now breaking the rules?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kim-davis-office-will-issue-marriage-licences-but-without-her-signature-issue-not-settled-145273/

Parihaka
16 Sep 15,, 00:58
Nothing wrong with it. The word itself IMHO is superficial, the idea should be to get the same status, legally speaking, that a married couple enjoy.
But that's the problem, Christians don't believe the word itself is superficial.

DarthSiddius
16 Sep 15,, 01:12
But that's the problem, Christians don't believe the word itself is superficial.

Of course, for them it's not and nobody is asking them to accept gay marriage. A marriage certificate in the US is not a religious document. If it were, it would be a disservice to all other theists and atheists alike. What Kim believes in is her personal matter but her actions took place in the public sphere, as a public official at that. This takes us right back to 'why should we aggrieve one group (multiple in this instance) to pacify the other group' paradigm.

I know this goes both ways but - in one case the first group's need logically doesn't affect the other group while in the other case the first group's need curtails the other group's need.

Parihaka
16 Sep 15,, 01:16
Of course, for them it's not and nobody is asking them to accept gay marriage. A marriage certificate in the US is not a religious document. If it were, it would be a disservice to all other theists and atheists alike. What Kim believes in is her personal matter but her actions took place in the public sphere, as a public official at that. This takes us right back to 'why should we aggrieve one group (multiple in this instance) to pacify the other group' paradigm.

I know this goes both ways but - in one case the first group's need logically doesn't affect the other group while in the other case the first group's need curtails the other group's need.
Then why has the U.S. adopted UN resolution 16/18?
And why does the U.S. have this policy for korans?
http://web.archive.org/web/20080530003553/http://www.voanews.com/mediaassets/english/2005_06/Other/pdf/PR050603-b.pdf

antimony
16 Sep 15,, 02:00
This isn't about you and your belief system specifically. This is about you attacking Tradition, and what actually happens to Society when you attack Tradition, instead of what you think SHOULD happen if everyone adopts your beliefs.

For example, you are against Child Marriage. Great, so am I. You are an economic libertarian, or something like that, right? Great. I lean towards that direction.

What actually happens when marriage rates decline? In the US, single people vote for Big Government Dems by margins of 2 and 3 and 4 to 1. That's the actual concrete result of your anti-tradition beliefs: Bernie Sanders!

Similarly your assault on Tradition and championship of Secular Humanism has watered down the in-group identities of European groups, which has a great effect of not starting wars between France and Germany, and the negative effect of the stupid Eurozone monetary policy and not being able to control migrant populations. That's the direct result of your Secular Humanism.

By the way, regarding semi-literate, the West started off worse than India is right now, and, again, it advanced, through the ALLIANCE of Church and State, for about 1000 years.

GVchamp

Aren't you being a little alarmist?

No one here is speaking out against marriages or advocatingstaying single. If religions want to promote strongert family bonds then I am fine with it. Europe's struggles with migrants are a result of the rest of the world's (especially the middle east's) hypocrisy in not doing their bit. I am as much concerned about that as you are.

Officer of Engineers
16 Sep 15,, 02:54
don't accept them if you do not want to. Don't talk to them, ignore them or cross the road if you see them. But you cannot deny them their rights.

And by the way, pedophiles harm children. Do not equate them to gays.why the hell not!!!!

I am allowed to hate whom i want to hate!

Or are you telling me that is now against the law?

What fucking rights are we talking about? That I find homosexuality offensive and I DO NOT WANT MY DAUGHTER BEING EXPOSED TO IT?

WHY, AS A PARENT, DOES STATE OVER RULE MY WISHES?

ARE YOU SAYING THAT I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TEACH MY DAUGHTER MY BELIEFS AND I AM OBLIGATED TO TEACH THE STATES' BELIEFS?

Officer of Engineers
16 Sep 15,, 03:31
What I find extremely offensive is anyone stating the rights of the state over rules the rights of the parent.

I want the parent to have the right to teach their kid KKK, Nazi, anything. We have the right to counter that view.

But what you're advocating smakes of Mao and Stalin and Obama ain't even fucking close and I am not going to give him the fucking prize just for being a fucking student!

DarthSiddius
16 Sep 15,, 03:48
I was expecting this argument at some point. What if the Majority Opinion changes in 20 years? Can we then "undiscover" this newly found Constitutional right? What other Constitutional rights should be subject to public opinion polls?

Majority opinion is not how Constitutional rights work. The majority of the nation is in favor of seat belt laws. It is not the place of the Court to mandate Seat Belt Laws in accordance with the newly discovered 9th Amendment Privilege "Justice Kennedy Wants To Feel Important and #OnTheRightSideOfHistory"

If you have a majority opinion, great: pass a law. Don't legislate from the bench. If you have a super-majority opinion, EVEN BETTER! Pass an amendment! The Constitution was set-up with an Amendment process specifically for this reason, which the Courts are subverting because Harvard graduates know best.

Well we do live in the tyranny of the majority. While some are free to accept the change and even embrace it, others can work on countering it. Same as today actually!


Then why has the U.S. adopted UN resolution 16/18?
And why does the U.S. have this policy for korans?
http://web.archive.org/web/20080530003553/http://www.voanews.com/mediaassets/english/2005_06/Other/pdf/PR050603-b.pdf

I haven't read the finer details of this resolution so do excuse any ignorance on my part. The US has those policies because the US is not a perfect country. No country is. Does this mean we just give up altogether?

DarthSiddius
16 Sep 15,, 03:58
What I find extremely offensive is anyone stating the rights of the state over rules the rights of the parent.

I want the parent to have the right to teach their kid KKK, Nazi, anything. We have the right to counter that view.

But what you're advocating smakes of Mao and Stalin and Obama ain't even fucking close and I am not going to give him the fucking prize just for being a fucking student!

Sir,

Do you think in this case the state is truly overruling a parent's right? Kim Davis is still free to teach her son whatever she likes.

Officer of Engineers
16 Sep 15,, 04:04
And the school is using my tax dollars to teach things I find offensive! And I don't have the right to at least speak out?

Officer of Engineers
16 Sep 15,, 04:05
What I really find offensive is that I do not have the right to hate!

Firestorm
16 Sep 15,, 04:33
And the school is using my tax dollars to teach things I find offensive! And I don't have the right to at least speak out?

Of course you do. Kim Davis is not being faulted for speaking out. Plenty of the GoP Presidential candidates spoke out against this as well. Kim Davis was faulted for not doing the job taxpayers paid her to do and being in contempt of court.

You can hold placards denouncing homosexuality and protest against it during the SFO gay pride parade if you want. That is well within your rights, and it should remain so.

Don't bring in strawmen. Nobody is taking away your right to hate people or teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin.

And they have a right to marry who they want. Nobody should be allowed to take that away either.

Parihaka
16 Sep 15,, 04:36
Well we do live in the tyranny of the majority. While some are free to accept the change and even embrace it, others can work on countering it. Same as today actually!



I haven't read the finer details of this resolution so do excuse any ignorance on my part. The US has those policies because the US is not a perfect country. No country is. Does this mean we just give up altogether?Personally all I'm arguing is that you negotiate and compromise, something the US is willing to do with various religions but not it's own christian population seemingly.

DarthSiddius
16 Sep 15,, 05:24
Personally all I'm arguing is that you negotiate and compromise, something the US is willing to do with various religions but not it's own christian population seemingly.

I agree. Figuring out the various thresholds and where to draw the line is what is hard.

A quote by the novelist Ayn Rand comes to mind - 'Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)'.

We have something similar in India. Reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. People often complain along your lines (and it does have some merit). Not sure what to believe but sometimes we have to go the extra mile if only just to provide assurance to the vulnerable.

Red Team
16 Sep 15,, 05:57
Why should Christians make concessions? There's certainly no concessions being offered to them.

Pari,

I'd like to bring up the fact that there are many major Protestant sects of Christianity that religiously sanction gay marriage. It's hardly the case that Christians as a whole feel opposed and/or oppressed by the ruling. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/02/where-christian-churches-stand-on-gay-marriage/

It's also no secret that churches and other religious organizations already benefit highly from legislation i.e., tax exemption status. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#Obtaining_status As far as civil rights and legislation goes, Christians are most definitely not oppressed, especially compared to homosexuals.


whats wrong with calling gay unions civil unions? Why are only liberals allowed to make the rules?

I would like to say for the record that as a Catholic, I believe the sacrament of marriage---as stated by (our interpretation) of the Bible and affirmed by the Vatican council---is one that takes place between a man and a woman. As long as this remains the case, it is my moral obligation to acknowledge this.

That said, at least in this country, religious marriage and legal marriage have always technically been regarded separately anyway. Case in point, my parents hold two marriage certificates: one affirming their union in the eyes of God as participants of sacred sacrament, the other (later registered when they emigrated to the US) guaranteeing state-sanctioned benefits i.e., filing joint tax returns. Theology aside, there weren't really many arguments against allowing gays to marry anyway. As to the issue of why "civil unions" aren't sufficient, I usually think of these two eventualities :

--Civil Unions do not grant the same benefits as Marriage. This effectively relegates same sex couples to being second-class citizens, essentially government-sanctioned discrimination.

--Civil Unions grant all the same benefits as Marriage just short of the term itself, at which point things become legislatively absurd...the irony being that this reduces the meaning of marriage since a couple now can theoretically get a civil union and accomplish the same exact thing. Also, the precedent of going against the notion of "Separate but Equal" comes to mind.

tuna
16 Sep 15,, 18:36
What I really find offensive is that I do not have the right to hate!


Col,
How do you not have the right to hate? We are all free to feel as we like - it is when we put the hate into tangible action that problems arise.
KKKers and Black Panthers are equally allowed to have their idiotic points of view, it is only when they start acting on them that they find themselves on the wrong side of legality.
Kim Davis can feel how she likes, but as an agent of the state she is not allowed to impose that on others. I actually really like this case, and despite being personally against gay marriage (due to my incurable heterosexuality) hope she loses on this. My reasoning is that she has a stronger case as being a religious conviction than a local police department who doesn't "feel comfortable" in issuing concealed carry permits. Both are acting as agents of the state in negating rights.
The only reason Kim Davis was in jailed is because she was deliberately failing to do her job for the people of the state, all people - including those she doesn't agree with.
Homosexuality is the same as other religions or points of view - you don't have to agree with them, but you can't act against them.

antimony
16 Sep 15,, 19:41
And the school is using my tax dollars to teach things I find offensive! And I don't have the right to at least speak out?

Col.

No one is stopping youi fropm being a hateful bigot, otherwise the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK would have been clamped down upon.

Your tirade about the school using your tax dollars is bewildiering. You against a public school education now? I hate calculus and American history. Should I rail against the government using my tax money to teach those balsted things?

Again, teach your children whatever you want, hate whoever you want, rail against whoeveryou want, no one is stopping you. You would even have the ACLU fight for you

gunnut
16 Sep 15,, 20:20
Christian traditions have not been subverted. Gays aren't asking the Church to recognize their marriages. They only want the federal and state governments to do so.

Secondly, the Church does not have a copyright on the English word "marriage". If they do, and can prove it in a court of law, then I would agree that gays would not have a right to be "married" and will have to make do with "civil unions" or something similar. The same will of course then apply to every non-Christian straight couple in the US as well unless the Church makes an exception for their ceremonies.

Why is the government in the marriage business to begin with?

gunnut
16 Sep 15,, 20:21
What I find extremely offensive is anyone stating the rights of the state over rules the rights of the parent.

I want the parent to have the right to teach their kid KKK, Nazi, anything. We have the right to counter that view.

But what you're advocating smakes of Mao and Stalin and Obama ain't even fucking close and I am not going to give him the fucking prize just for being a fucking student!

Like!

gunnut
16 Sep 15,, 20:23
I am waiting for a pair of homosexuals muslims demanding to be married in a mosque. That will really drive the "liberal progressives" nuts.

Wait....are there any homosexual muslims?

antimony
16 Sep 15,, 21:19
I am waiting for a pair of homosexuals muslims demanding to be married in a mosque. That will really drive the "liberal progressives" nuts.

Wait....are there any homosexual muslims?

You know me, I would love to see that. Any person who then demands that "Islamic traditions should be respected" should get a boot in the nuts

antimony
16 Sep 15,, 21:21
Why is the government in the marriage business to begin with?

Lets decide this : people should be able to get married, right? To take care of myriad reasons - "love"(whatever that is), starting a family, taxation and benefits and so on.

How do people who do not subscribe to any church or religion get married? The government has a role to play here. That is how it is done in India, where a couple getting married can get their marriage resgistered without any social/ religious implications. the opposit is also true. There are laws that allow marriages to be conducted on a religious basis without any government registration (you can if you want to). You choose whatever floats your boat.

DarthSiddius
16 Sep 15,, 21:24
I am waiting for a pair of homosexuals muslims demanding to be married in a mosque. That will really drive the "liberal progressives" nuts.

Wait....are there any homosexual muslims?

The crux being they are allowed to get married, even if not in a mosque. Same goes for a church.

DarthSiddius
16 Sep 15,, 21:27
Lets decide this : people should be able to get married, right? To take care of myriad reasons - "love"(whatever that is), starting a family, taxation and benefits and so on.

How do people who do not subscribe to any church or religion get married? The government has a role to play here. That is how it is done in India, where a couple getting married can get their marriage resgistered without any social/ religious implications. the opposit is also true. There are laws that allow marriages to be conducted on a religious basis without any government registration (you can if you want to). You choose whatever floats your boat.

We need laws tackling marriage and divorce. This is why we have family law.

GVChamp
16 Sep 15,, 22:02
Lets decide this : people should be able to get married, right?.
No. You are regarding marriage as a government created institution. It's not. Marriage is a socially constructed institution, and the government developed certain law that applies specifically to married couples.

You have this backwards.

That gays want access to the same protection as heterosexual couples is asinine, for the same reason McDonald's is not allowed the same tax treatment as Churches.

GVChamp
16 Sep 15,, 22:50
We need laws tackling marriage and divorce. This is why we have family law.

Hehehehehe, a good cross-cultural Social Sciences education will disabuse you of many "needs" you think society needs. How do non-state societies handle their marriage "law"? Why can't we just let the churches handle disputes between recognized church marriages?
Unfortunately, modern Social Sciences is only about proving various micro-aggressions and why we need to accept nonCIS nonHeterNormative Syrian War Refugees and why haven't we made 80% of CEOs women yet?!

EDIT: In the early Middle Ages, a lot of laws would have to be made by the Church, since the State had a habit of collapsing in a Game of Thrones-esque power struggle every 20 years. Not to mention there was the odd habit of the State changing laws randomly to reflect whoever was now in charge. So, the State changing the definition of marriage, again, in 2015, would be seen as a reason to have Church manage the Marriage Business, not the State. Feature, not bug!

gunnut
16 Sep 15,, 23:35
Lets decide this : people should be able to get married, right? To take care of myriad reasons - "love"(whatever that is), starting a family, taxation and benefits and so on.

How do people who do not subscribe to any church or religion get married? The government has a role to play here. That is how it is done in India, where a couple getting married can get their marriage resgistered without any social/ religious implications. the opposit is also true. There are laws that allow marriages to be conducted on a religious basis without any government registration (you can if you want to). You choose whatever floats your boat.

Why does the government care?

Two people marrying in a church, in a mosque, in a temple, with the recognition of their family and friends, vs. two people marrying in a park, on the beach, in a restaurant, with the recognition of their family and friends.

I don't see where and how a government should get involved.

Why do they need to be registered? Two people telling me they are husband and wife, I take their word for it. I never asked to see their piece of paper from the government or church. Do you?

Why should the government get involved?

gunnut
16 Sep 15,, 23:37
The crux being they are allowed to get married, even if not in a mosque. Same goes for a church.

What if they demand to be married in a mosque? I want to see female imam marrying a homosexual couple in a mosque.

DarthSiddius
17 Sep 15,, 00:00
What if they demand to be married in a mosque? I want to see female imam marrying a homosexual couple in a mosque.

Is the couple in Kim's case demanding to get married in a church? If not I don't see how this is relevant. To answer your question, their demand to get married in a mosque would be unreasonable because the mosque is not required by law to accommodate their request.

antimony
17 Sep 15,, 00:01
What if they demand to be married in a mosque? I want to see female imam marrying a homosexual couple in a mosque.

GN,

I should not see why we should force the Mosque to recognize their marriage. In the same vein, I do not want to force the church to actually conduct or even recognize gay marriages

antimony
17 Sep 15,, 00:03
Why does the government care?

Two people marrying in a church, in a mosque, in a temple, with the recognition of their family and friends, vs. two people marrying in a park, on the beach, in a restaurant, with the recognition of their family and friends.

I don't see where and how a government should get involved.

Why do they need to be registered? Two people telling me they are husband and wife, I take their word for it. I never asked to see their piece of paper from the government or church. Do you?

Why should the government get involved?

I don't know, ask Kim Davis. Between her and the people wanting to get married, she represented the government.

DarthSiddius
17 Sep 15,, 00:07
Hehehehehe, a good cross-cultural Social Sciences education will disabuse you of many "needs" you think society needs. How do non-state societies handle their marriage "law"? Why can't we just let the churches handle disputes between recognized church marriages?
Unfortunately, modern Social Sciences is only about proving various micro-aggressions and why we need to accept nonCIS nonHeterNormative Syrian War Refugees and why haven't we made 80% of CEOs women yet?!


Sure, go ahead write to your government. When it's enacted as law you have every right to do all that. I would argue against your desire to emulate non-state societies but then that's besides the point.



EDIT: In the early Middle Ages, a lot of laws would have to be made by the Church, since the State had a habit of collapsing in a Game of Thrones-esque power struggle every 20 years. Not to mention there was the odd habit of the State changing laws randomly to reflect whoever was now in charge. So, the State changing the definition of marriage, again, in 2015, would be seen as a reason to have Church manage the Marriage Business, not the State. Feature, not bug!


It made sense in the middle ages. Does it make sense now?

antimony
17 Sep 15,, 00:08
No. You are regarding marriage as a government created institution. It's not. Marriage is a socially constructed institution, and the government developed certain law that applies specifically to married couples.

You have this backwards.

I think I made it very clear that a marriage is primarily a social contract and laws can be devised to take the government out of the picture.

My question is what about those who do not come under the denomination of a church. Not just homosexuals, we can talk about non-believers or hindus in a Christian society or Muslims and Christians in a Hindu or Buddhist society. Should the dominant religion decide how they should be getting married or allow them to have either a non religious marriage or some sort of marriage that would satisfy their particular religion?


That gays want access to the same protection as heterosexual couples is asinine, for the same reason McDonald's is not allowed the same tax treatment as Churches.

Huh???

gunnut
17 Sep 15,, 00:11
Is the couple in Kim's case demanding to get married in a church? If not I don't see how this is relevant. To answer your question, their demand to get married in a mosque would be unreasonable because the mosque is not required by law to accommodate their request.

I agree, Kim was wrong to refuse to carry out her duty as a government employee while citing religious reasons. If only we can hold all government employees to such high standards....

DarthSiddius
17 Sep 15,, 00:12
I agree, Kim was wrong to refuse to carry out her duty as a government employee while citing religious reasons. If only we can hold all government employees to such high standards....

Well... you gotta start somewhere....:)

gunnut
17 Sep 15,, 00:13
GN,

I should not see why we should force the Mosque to recognize their marriage. In the same vein, I do not want to force the church to actually conduct or even recognize gay marriages

I agree with you. Let's take one small step at a time. Catholic church used to have only male priests. Now there are women priests. Could they, should they, have refused this change?

gunnut
17 Sep 15,, 00:15
Well... you gotta start somewhere....:)

For every single Kim Davis, I can cite 3 examples of democrats refuse to execute the laws in the books.

DarthSiddius
17 Sep 15,, 00:16
For every single Kim Davis, I can cite 3 examples of democrats refuse to execute the laws in the books.

By all means go after them. Kim Davis is a democrat BTW.

gunnut
17 Sep 15,, 00:30
By all means go after them. Kim Davis is a democrat BTW.

Oh good, and people say there is no war on conservatives. Other democrats get a free pass but the conservative one gets lynched.

Sanctuary cities? Federal marijuana law? Voting rights act?

San Francisco and other liberal cities openly order their police department to not cooperate with federal officials in executing federal immigration laws.

Local governments refuse to bust marijuana operations.

Federal department of justice refuse to investigate the New Black Panther party intimidating white voters.

If only all government officials are held in as high an esteem as Kim Davis is.

DarthSiddius
17 Sep 15,, 00:35
Oh good, and people say there is no war on conservatives. Other democrats get a free pass but the conservative one gets lynched.

Sanctuary cities? Federal marijuana law? Voting rights act?

San Francisco and other liberal cities openly order their police department to not cooperate with federal officials in executing federal immigration laws.

Local governments refuse to bust marijuana operations.

Federal department of justice refuse to investigate the New Black Panther party intimidating white voters.

If only all government officials are held in as high an esteem as Kim Davis is.

You look at her as a member of a group. My viewpoint is much more singular. Her actions as an individual.

gunnut
17 Sep 15,, 00:36
You look at her as a member of a group. My viewpoint is much more singular. Her actions as an individual.

And I would like to see the same standards applied to this individual on other individuals. If not, we need to examine why not.

DarthSiddius
17 Sep 15,, 00:37
And I would like to see the same standards applied to this individual on other individuals. If not, we need to examine why not.

Spot on.

Red Team
17 Sep 15,, 00:42
In the early Middle Ages, a lot of laws would have to be made by the Church, since the State had a habit of collapsing in a Game of Thrones-esque power struggle every 20 years. Not to mention there was the odd habit of the State changing laws randomly to reflect whoever was now in charge. So, the State changing the definition of marriage, again, in 2015, would be seen as a reason to have Church manage the Marriage Business, not the State. Feature, not bug!

So you support the merging of church doctrine with government policy?

I also hope you know that marriage was also widely used as a political tool by both the Feudal lords of Medieval Europe and the Mongols as a means of securing alliances "bound by blood" with other tribes/kingdoms. Marriage has also existed as a polyamorous institution among some Native American tribes as a way of passing down the strongest traits in the tribe to the next generation. The "marriage of love" institution is, in of itself, a radical change when put in a historical global context, so why should it be the case that we're worrying about same-sex marriage somehow violating traditional virtues now?




Why should the government get involved?

Issues of financial consolidation, inheritance of estate, and guardianship of children come to mind.