[W:422] So, marriage is destroyed, right?

[Lisa]

Where did I ever claim such a thing? Oh right, nowhere.

Then what is your opposition to marriage equality?

 

[Dayton3]

And so dishonest of you (another sin, I hope you repent) to cut out the part of my post that explained that...and that you cannot:

It is hardly dishonest to focus on answering only part of a post.

 

[Dayton3]

I do. I am a Christian and his question was very valid. Please answer it:

The Bible normally includes the Old Testament for historical reasons. But not all Bibles do. I've seen a number of Bibles distributed (such as by the Gideons) that are New Testament only.

The Gideons International - Wikipedia

 

[OldFatGuy]

Then what is your opposition to marriage equality?

There is no such thing as marriage equality. Ask my wife, she rules. She let's me think I make the decisions, but that is an illusion.

 

[vegas giants]

The Bible normally includes the Old Testament for historical reasons. But not all Bibles do. I've seen a number of Bibles distributed (such as by the Gideons) that are New Testament only.

The Gideons International - Wikipedia

Millions of Christians all over the world follow the old testament. Lots in my neighborhood

 

[Lisa]

There is no such thing as marriage equality. Ask my wife, she rules. She lets me think I make the decisions, but that is an illusion.

That's between you and her, your dog and your mother-in-law.

 

[Lursa]

It is hardly dishonest to focus on answering only part of a post.

Of course it is, when the rest of the post answered the question you still disregarded (pretended you didnt read) in your response.

In a discussion, you discuss the points that refute your arguments/statements. Mine did just that.

 

[Lursa]

The Bible normally includes the Old Testament for historical reasons. But not all Bibles do. I've seen a number of Bibles distributed (such as by the Gideons) that are New Testament only.

The Gideons International - Wikipedia

That doesnt answer the question...where is the disclaimer in Bibles with the OT that it is just for 'historical purposes?' It is published with equal basis.

 

[Craig234]

All humans, especially Americans it seems, have very selective amnesia.

Which is why using the topic now, when they are no longer being assaulted with propaganda on the issue much, they should be better able to learn what was done - like looking back at the support for 'big tobacco' challenging the science on that for corrupt reasons, now that it's so widely accepted.

 

[Dayton3]

That doesnt answer the question...where is the disclaimer in Bibles with the OT that it is just for 'historical purposes?' It is published with equal basis.

Seems like a perfectly natural inference to me.

 

[Lursa]

Seems like a perfectly natural inference to me.

Well it's not, esp. since so many fundies and extremists constantly refer to it and to 'living' it as God's Word.

Do you deny this?

 

[OldFatGuy]

That's between you and her, your dog and your mother-in-law.

My mother in law is long dead. Dog only cares about who has food to share, and long naps. And he never asks for my credit card.

 

[Dayton3]

Well it's not, esp. since so many fundies and extremists constantly refer to it and to 'living' it as God's Word.

Do you deny this?

They're wrong.

I'm not.

 

[Lursa]

They're wrong.

I'm not.

Prove it. We've already discussed that you have no credibility where your personal judgements are concerned.

This is a discussion forum...not a 'declaration' forum :roll:

 

[veritas1]

Then what is your opposition to marriage equality?

I'm not going to get into a long rehash of stuff that's been posted in here before but, in short, marriage had a long established definition which was a union between a man and a woman. Two men or two women didn't qualify. Society had found that to work perfectly well for a millennium and found no reason to alter it. I similarly saw no reason to alter it. My side lost and we're talking about other issues now. I'm not sure why some people need to dredge up stuff where they've already prevailed.

 

[Dayton3]

Prove it. We've already discussed that you have no credibility where your personal judgements are concerned.

This is a discussion forum...not a 'declaration' forum :roll:

Some of you are not interested in honest discussion.

 

[Lursa]

Some of you are not interested in honest discussion.

I've been completely honest, you are lying or mistaken and just using that as an excuse to avoid answering questions that you cannot, not without admitting your position/opinion fails.

 

[Lisa]

I'm not going to get into a long rehash of stuff that's been posted in here before but, in short, marriage had a long established definition which was a union between a man and a woman. Two men or two women didn't qualify. Society had found that to work perfectly well for a millennium and found no reason to alter it. I similarly saw no reason to alter it. My side lost and we're talking about other issues now. I'm not sure why some people need to dredge up stuff where they've already prevailed.

Marriage in the past had not been limited to a male-female relationship. That is revisionist history, but even if it had there is no reason not to change for the equal rights of others. Slavery was common in the past so is that a valid reason not to ban it? Why should we continue to be stuck in the past because you refuse to change and accept others as equals?

LGBT aren't asking for your approval and your opinions do not determine the rights of others when you already enjoy that same right. I'm not sure of your stance is based purely on the refusal to change or that you think that LGBT people are second class citizens and you seek to use the power of the state to enforce that bias.

 

[veritas1]

Marriage in the past had not been limited to a male-female relationship. That is revisionist history, but even if it had there is no reason not to change for the equal rights of others. Slavery was common in the past so is that a valid reason not to ban it? Why should we continue to be stuck in the past because you refuse to change and accept others as equals?

LGBT aren't asking for your approval and your opinions do not determine the rights of others when you already enjoy that same right. I'm not sure of your stance is based purely on the refusal to change or that you think that LGBT people are second class citizens and you seek to use the power of the state to enforce that bias.

Slavery has no relationship to the marriage question. They are separate and distinct issues. As for marriage, it was not a right but a privilege. Had it been a right, the states would have had no business licensing it or presenting qualifications for who could get married. What other rights need licensing and approval? Free speech? The right to worship? No, they are inherent rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Similarly, if marriage were a right, then NO two people or groups of people could ever be prevented from marrying. This is implicit in the argument used to push gay marriage, that being that the Constitution contains some right guaranteeing it.

If that were true, then those rights apply to ALL people at ALL times. IOW, if two men and three women show up and want to get married, they can use the same pretext advanced by gay marriage proponents and nobody can argue that their rights are subservient to those of others. IOW, marriage ceases to have any definition except as a legal coupling or for the disposition of estates. Yet, the main reason for it was to maintain families and propagate the race. Tax ramifications came long, long afterwards.

So, that is my position but, as I said, I'm not sure why we need to rehash a settled issue.

 

[Dayton3]

Marriage in the past had not been limited to a male-female relationship. That is revisionist history, but even if it had there is no reason not to change for the equal rights of others. .

Why not? Why assume that "equal rights" trumps everything else?

 

[Lursa]

Why not? Why assume that "equal rights" trumps everything else?

In America, under our Constitution, what trumps attempting equal rights for all people?

 

[Lisa]

Why not? Why assume that "equal rights" trumps everything else?

Equal rights is the core idea of the Constitution and the concept of freedom It is spelled out very clearly in the 14th amendment.

What is the compelling state interest to deny LGBT people the right to marry the adult partner of their choice? Legally the bar is set very high for the state to deny someone of equal rights, to prevent the state from trampling the rights of the citizens for reasons that are not legally sufficient. The core concept of freedom is that we have the right to act as we choose unless the state can prove a compelling state interest to deny that ability to act.

The Obergfell decision legally mirrors the Loving v. Virginia decision so if you deny LGBT people the right to marry then you also deny interracial couples that same marriage right.

 

[Lisa]

Slavery has no relationship to the marriage question. They are separate and distinct issues. As for marriage, it was not a right but a privilege. Had it been a right, the states would have had no business licensing it or presenting qualifications for who could get married. What other rights need licensing and approval? Free speech? The right to worship? No, they are inherent rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Similarly, if marriage were a right, then NO two people or groups of people could ever be prevented from marrying. This is implicit in the argument used to push gay marriage, that being that the Constitution contains some right guaranteeing it.

If that were true, then those rights apply to ALL people at ALL times. IOW, if two men and three women show up and want to get married, they can use the same pretext advanced by gay marriage proponents and nobody can argue that their rights are subservient to those of others. IOW, marriage ceases to have any definition except as a legal coupling or for the disposition of estates. Yet, the main reason for it was to maintain families and propagate the race. Tax ramifications came long, long afterwards.

So, that is my position but, as I said, I'm not sure why we need to rehash a settled issue.

Marriage is a right. That is settled law from the 1900s.

Judge Vaughn R. Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry

Polygamy was banned by the Reynolds v. US decision that was the basis of Utah being admitted to the union, so while marriage is a right, you can only legally marry one person.

 

[veritas1]

Marriage is a right. That is settled law from the 1900s.



Polygamy was banned by the Reynolds v. US decision that was the basis of Utah being admitted to the union, so while marriage is a right, you can only legally marry one person.

Loving involved interracial marriage, not gay marriage. All it said is that any man in the state had the same right as any other man to marry the woman of his choice. Similarly, any woman in the state had the same right as any other woman to marry the man of her choice. It did NOT fundamentally alter the definition of marriage as being one man and one woman.

 

[Dayton3]

Equal rights is the core idea of the Constitution and the concept of freedom It is spelled out very clearly in the 14th amendment. .

1) The 14th Amendment wasn't originally in the U.S. Constitution
2) It was intended mainly to augment and support the 13th amendment which ended slavery.
3) Apply it to a whole ranger of other issues is a gross distortion and misuse of the 14th Amendment.