RE: Another Progressive Victory!

RE: Another Progressive Victory! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Powergamz1 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/20/2013 6:04:08 PM)
You can't simply hand wave your own words away. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Carolyn Compton is in a three year-old relationship with a woman. According to Compton’s partner Page Price, Compton’s ex-husband rarely sees their two children and was also once charged with stalking Compton, a felony, although he eventually plead to a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespassing. And yet, thanks to a Texas judge, Compton could lose custody of her children because she has the audacity to live with the woman she loves. According to Price, Judge John Roach, a Republican who presides over a state trial court in McKinney, Texas, placed a so-called “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers. This clause forbids Compton having a person that she is not related to “by blood or marriage” at her home past 9pm when her children are present. Since Texas will not allow Compton to marry her partner, this means that she effectively cannot live with her partner so long as she retains custody over her children. Invoking the “morality clause,” Judge Roach gave Price 30 days to move out of Compton’s home. Compton can appeal Roach’s decision, but her appeal will be heard by the notoriously conservative Texas court system. Ultimately, the question of whether Compton’s relationship with Price is entitled to the same dignity accorded to any other loving couple could rest with the United States Supreme Court. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/17/2029361/texas-judge-forbids-lesbian-woman-from-living-with-her-partner http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-lesbian-moms-partner-10147997.html As has been said by others, this is fucked up. This is also not something I support.

DomKen -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/20/2013 7:08:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr DS, you're wasting your breath. The obtuseness you're facing is because they want the issue alive and well. No one (that I've seen) on the left is interested in actually "solving the problem" and making sure that a segment of our society has access to the rights that they deserve. The left is willing to let these people suffer as "second class citizens" because they are refusing to give up their toehold on a religious exercise (which they, supposedly don't care about, anyway). It's not about solving problems. It's about keeping them active and holding a segment of our society hostage, in the mean time. I'm all for solving the problem. Allowing same sex couples to marry is the obvious thing, marriage is historically a social not religious institution. If religious groups want to solemnize their marriages in some manner and call it something religious that is fine with me.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/20/2013 7:40:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice The idea that marriage is solely a religious exercise is wishful thinking, rooted in neither history nor law, to which posters named DS seem particularly prone. I'm honestly not sure why. Do you not understand a proposal for a solution? That a proposal isn't a straight reporting of the way things are now (else there would be no need to propose anything)? Are you saying that a marriage isn't a religious institution? Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible? I could be wrong here, but there sure seems to be some background as a religious thing there... If civil unions conferred the benefits currently conferred by marriage and marriages became simply a construct of religion, and held no benefits over an above a civil union, what would the problem be? Are you worried that someone might look down on you for having a civil union? Is it going to matter that it's called a marriage when they look down on you for being in a same sex marriage? Regardless of what it's called, they will have some pissy attitudes thrown their way. And, if you get barred from some civil benefit because you have a civil union (if civil unions are what confer the benefits) as opposed to a marriage, won't there be recourse?

dcnovice -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/20/2013 8:14:52 PM)
Your rush to attempt a clever-sounding response has taken a toll on your comprehension. quote: Do you not understand a proposal for a solution? That a proposal isn't a straight reporting of the way things are now (else there would be no need to propose anything)? Michael's post, to which I was replying, described marriage as a "religious exercise" in fact, not as a proposal. quote: Are you saying that a marriage isn't a religious institution? Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible? I could be wrong here, but there sure seems to be some background as a religious thing there... You overlooked the crucial word "solely" in my post. I'm not sure if that reflects sloppiness or intellectual dishonesty. quote: If civil unions conferred the benefits currently conferred by marriage and marriages became simply a construct of religion, and held no benefits over an above a civil union, what would the problem be? What would the benefit be? For someone who claims to favor a conservative approach to the Constitution and limited government, you're proposing a massive legal upheaval, and you've yet to advance a good reason for it. quote: Are you worried that someone might look down on you for having a civil union? No. My church does same-sex marriages. quote: And, if you get barred from some civil benefit because you have a civil union (if civil unions are what confer the benefits) as opposed to a marriage, won't there be recourse? For pages now, you've been talking about how civil unions would convey the same benefits as marriage, though you haven't explained how you'd bring that about. Now you're raising the prospect that they might not convey the same benefits after all. What would the "recourse" be? How much time and money would it take?

DomKen -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/20/2013 8:22:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice The idea that marriage is solely a religious exercise is wishful thinking, rooted in neither history nor law, to which posters named DS seem particularly prone. I'm honestly not sure why. Do you not understand a proposal for a solution? That a proposal isn't a straight reporting of the way things are now (else there would be no need to propose anything)? Are you saying that a marriage isn't a religious institution? Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible? I could be wrong here, but there sure seems to be some background as a religious thing there... Marriage long predates the bible in all of its parts. Consider this carefully, was the greek pantheon made up? That means Hera goddess of marriage was made up. Why? Because marriage already existed and someone felt it needed a patron deity. Marriage therefore was a social institution first.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/20/2013 10:25:48 PM)
You aren't proposing a solution for anything, because you are misstating what the elements of the problem are. The claim that a government issued license to get married (or a decree to get divorced) is a religious exercise has been debunked. The claim that 'civil unions' are the same as marriage has been debunked. The claim that churches will be forced to marry in violation of their tenets has been debunked. The legal difference between a marriage license and a religious sacrament/observation of the event has been explained complete with links. The fact that separate but unequal is unconstitutional has been repeatedly pointed out. The fact that every single one of your talking points was shot down in Loving v. Virginia has been repeatedly pointed out. There is no difference between your 'proposal' and one that says that the government should get out of the 'citizenship business' all together, and let the churches decide who is a real citizen, and who is a 'civil resident'. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Do you not understand a proposal for a solution? That a proposal isn't a straight reporting of the way things are now (else there would be no need to propose anything)? Are you saying that a marriage isn't a religious institution? Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible? I could be wrong here, but there sure seems to be some background as a religious thing there... If civil unions conferred the benefits currently conferred by marriage and marriages became simply a construct of religion, and held no benefits over an above a civil union, what would the problem be? Are you worried that someone might look down on you for having a civil union? Is it going to matter that it's called a marriage when they look down on you for being in a same sex marriage? Regardless of what it's called, they will have some pissy attitudes thrown their way. And, if you get barred from some civil benefit because you have a civil union (if civil unions are what confer the benefits) as opposed to a marriage, won't there be recourse?

Powergamz1 -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/20/2013 10:30:10 PM)
Yep. Oddly enough though, Genesis says nothing about Adam and Eve getting married, nothing about a license, nothing about paying a minister, nothing about churches, sacraments, gift registries at Dollar Tree, etc. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Marriage long predates the bible in all of its parts. Consider this carefully, was the greek pantheon made up? That means Hera goddess of marriage was made up. Why? Because marriage already existed and someone felt it needed a patron deity. Marriage therefore was a social institution first.

thishereboi -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 4:17:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The two terms are equal in the eyes of the law. But, to propose that a religious rite be called a civil union when it won't carry any civil benefits.... DS, you're wasting your breath. The obtuseness you're facing is because they want the issue alive and well. No one (that I've seen) on the left is interested in actually "solving the problem" and making sure that a segment of our society has access to the rights that they deserve. The left is willing to let these people suffer as "second class citizens" because they are refusing to give up their toehold on a religious exercise (which they, supposedly don't care about, anyway). It's not about solving problems. It's about keeping them active and holding a segment of our society hostage, in the mean time. Peace and comfort, Michael No one on the left? Not one single person on the left wants to solve the problem and you know this because you have talked to every fucking one of them right? How the fuck is anyone supposed to take anything you say seriously when you talk like a narrow minded bigot? You complain about people not solving problems, how the hell is painting half the country as evil and ignoring the problems on your own side going to solve anything? edited to add...yes I know you qualified it with "no one I have seen" and I am still calling bullshit on it. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 4:46:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Your rush to attempt a clever-sounding response has taken a toll on your comprehension. quote: Do you not understand a proposal for a solution? That a proposal isn't a straight reporting of the way things are now (else there would be no need to propose anything)? Michael's post, to which I was replying, described marriage as a "religious exercise" in fact, not as a proposal. Yet, by including the part I quoted in my response, you brought me into it, or were you only talking about DarkSteven and Michael? [8\|] quote: quote: Are you saying that a marriage isn't a religious institution? Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible? I could be wrong here, but there sure seems to be some background as a religious thing there... You overlooked the crucial word "solely" in my post. I'm not sure if that reflects sloppiness or intellectual dishonesty. The sloppiness of intellectual dishonesty would be on your account, then. I have never stated that marriage is solely a religious thing. I have proposed that the word "marriage" be used to refer solely to a religious rite, but you don't get the whole proposal thing. quote: quote: If civil unions conferred the benefits currently conferred by marriage and marriages became simply a construct of religion, and held no benefits over an above a civil union, what would the problem be? What would the benefit be? Not an answer to the question. Ignoring your unwillingness to admit there is no real downside, the benefit would be the distinct separation of a religious activity and civil benefits. quote: For someone who claims to favor a conservative approach to the Constitution and limited government, you're proposing a massive legal upheaval, and you've yet to advance a good reason for it. You're just too set in your ways to accept a different opinion. And, the "massive legal upheaval" would take, how long? There would be little increase in government, if any. I do like that straw though... quote: quote: Are you worried that someone might look down on you for having a civil union? No. My church does same-sex marriages. Then, any marriage done in your church would be called a... wait for it... marriage. quote: quote: And, if you get barred from some civil benefit because you have a civil union (if civil unions are what confer the benefits) as opposed to a marriage, won't there be recourse? For pages now, you've been talking about how civil unions would convey the same benefits as marriage, though you haven't explained how you'd bring that about. Now you're raising the prospect that they might not convey the same benefits after all. What would the "recourse" be? How much time and money would it take? How fucking long does it take to create a law? FFS, Obama could EO it and we'd have it in a day. You're clinging to paperwork issues here. I don't know why. There are times when extra paperwork is okay when it results in less paperwork and headaches later. Are you afraid of hiring an attorney? If you get discriminated against, what are your recourses now (ignoring the basis of the discrimination)? How would they be any different? Do you not see that calling a same sex marriage a marriage is the massive sticking point? Personally, I don't give a fuck what you call it. I'm proposing something that would keep both sides relatively happy. Same sex unions would carry all the same benefits as opposite sex unions. In the law's eyes, same sex and opposite sex unions would be civil unions and would enjoy all the same civil benefits. Because it's a matter of civil benefits, why should all unions not be called civil unions? There are already States that allow civil unions, right? You have no problem with the legal upheaval that would have to take place if National law isn't the same as theirs, do you? Here's yet another little tidbit... quote: Marriages can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting. *Warning! Proposal ahead! This means that I am not stating the way things currently are, but am offering a solution to amend* the things are now.** A wedding perfomed in a civil ceremony would result in a civil union, not sub-type at all. A wedding performed in a religious setting would result in a civil union, with the "marriage" sub-type. Both would be civil unions and share all the same benefits as the other, as the benefits are not conferred by the sub-type.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 4:47:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice The idea that marriage is solely a religious exercise is wishful thinking, rooted in neither history nor law, to which posters named DS seem particularly prone. I'm honestly not sure why. Do you not understand a proposal for a solution? That a proposal isn't a straight reporting of the way things are now (else there would be no need to propose anything)? Are you saying that a marriage isn't a religious institution? Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible? I could be wrong here, but there sure seems to be some background as a religious thing there... Marriage long predates the bible in all of its parts. Consider this carefully, was the greek pantheon made up? That means Hera goddess of marriage was made up. Why? Because marriage already existed and someone felt it needed a patron deity. Marriage therefore was a social institution first. Are you claiming belief in the supernatural?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 4:59:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 You aren't proposing a solution for anything, because you are misstating what the elements of the problem are. The claim that a government issued license to get married (or a decree to get divorced) is a religious exercise has been debunked. Never claimed that. quote: The claim that 'civil unions' are the same as marriage has been debunked. That was actually my proposal, of sorts. My proposal would create marriage as nothing more than a descriptor, empty of any civil weight. But, do go on... quote: The claim that churches will be forced to marry in violation of their tenets has been debunked. It could happen, which is all I claimed. quote: The legal difference between a marriage license and a religious sacrament/observation of the event has been explained complete with links. Thus, a proposal offers a change from the current... quote: The fact that separate but unequal is unconstitutional has been repeatedly pointed out. This is precisely why I propose that they all be called civil unions as far as the law is concerned. quote: The fact that every single one of your talking points was shot down in Loving v. Virginia has been repeatedly pointed out. Really? I must have missed the reference to that decision (honestly don't recall ever seeing that). quote: There is no difference between your 'proposal' and one that says that the government should get out of the 'citizenship business' all together, and let the churches decide who is a real citizen, and who is a 'civil resident'. Except for the little part that the religious ceremony, solemnization as some might be wont to call it, confers zero civil benefits in my proposal. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Do you not understand a proposal for a solution? That a proposal isn't a straight reporting of the way things are now (else there would be no need to propose anything)? Are you saying that a marriage isn't a religious institution? Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible? I could be wrong here, but there sure seems to be some background as a religious thing there... If civil unions conferred the benefits currently conferred by marriage and marriages became simply a construct of religion, and held no benefits over an above a civil union, what would the problem be? Are you worried that someone might look down on you for having a civil union? Is it going to matter that it's called a marriage when they look down on you for being in a same sex marriage? Regardless of what it's called, they will have some pissy attitudes thrown their way. And, if you get barred from some civil benefit because you have a civil union (if civil unions are what confer the benefits) as opposed to a marriage, won't there be recourse? Instead of attempting to come up with a solution that could be acceptable to pretty much everyone, you are supporting the idea that it's your way or the highway, which hasn't exactly been effective, has it?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 5:01:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The two terms are equal in the eyes of the law. But, to propose that a religious rite be called a civil union when it won't carry any civil benefits.... DS, you're wasting your breath. The obtuseness you're facing is because they want the issue alive and well. No one (that I've seen) on the left is interested in actually "solving the problem" and making sure that a segment of our society has access to the rights that they deserve. The left is willing to let these people suffer as "second class citizens" because they are refusing to give up their toehold on a religious exercise (which they, supposedly don't care about, anyway). It's not about solving problems. It's about keeping them active and holding a segment of our society hostage, in the mean time. Peace and comfort, Michael No one on the left? Not one single person on the left wants to solve the problem and you know this because you have talked to every fucking one of them right? How the fuck is anyone supposed to take anything you say seriously when you talk like a narrow minded bigot? You complain about people not solving problems, how the hell is painting half the country as evil and ignoring the problems on your own side going to solve anything? edited to add...yes I know you qualified it with "no one I have seen" and I am still calling bullshit on it. Be part of the solution, not the problem. Please re-read before you decide to attack. Of course, your intention is clear since you negated your own bullshit spew by acknowledging that you were twisting what I said. Nice try. We're done here.

DomKen -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 6:20:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice The idea that marriage is solely a religious exercise is wishful thinking, rooted in neither history nor law, to which posters named DS seem particularly prone. I'm honestly not sure why. Do you not understand a proposal for a solution? That a proposal isn't a straight reporting of the way things are now (else there would be no need to propose anything)? Are you saying that a marriage isn't a religious institution? Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible? I could be wrong here, but there sure seems to be some background as a religious thing there... Marriage long predates the bible in all of its parts. Consider this carefully, was the greek pantheon made up? That means Hera goddess of marriage was made up. Why? Because marriage already existed and someone felt it needed a patron deity. Marriage therefore was a social institution first. Are you claiming belief in the supernatural? No. I'm saying all religions are made up but that most people would agree the greek pantheon is specifically made up. BTW how could you possibly get a belief in the supernatural from what I wrote?

DomKen -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 6:22:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Please re-read before you decide to attack. Of course, your intention is clear since you negated your own bullshit spew by acknowledging that you were twisting what I said. I've twice posted clear statements directed to you that I do want to solve the issue so it is tiresome to be called a liar by you. Why don't you be a man and defend your insulting claim rather than flouncing away with another Brave Sir Robin.

thompsonx -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 6:23:46 AM)
quote: The sloppiness of intellectual dishonesty would be on your account, then. I have never stated that marriage is solely a religious thing. I have proposed that the word "marriage" be used to refer solely to a religious rite, but you don't get the whole proposal thing. The core of this arguement is that jeasus phreques get to call it marriage and the gays do not. sorta "my way or the highway" mindset. Yet this mindless shit is posted quote: Instead of attempting to come up with a solution that could be acceptable to pretty much everyone, you are supporting the idea that it's your way or the highway, which hasn't exactly been effective, has it?

thompsonx -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 6:38:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Are you saying that a marriage isn't a religious institution? Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible? I could be wrong here, but there sure seems to be some background as a religious thing there... Marriage long predates the bible in all of its parts. Consider this carefully, was the greek pantheon made up? That means Hera goddess of marriage was made up. Why? Because marriage already existed and someone felt it needed a patron deity. Marriage therefore was a social institution first. Are you claiming belief in the supernatural? Without a doubt the most stupid post of the morning. Anyone with a three digit iq and a pulse would recognize that it is not claiming a belief in the supernatural but mearly pointing out that the concept of marriage predates christianity. " Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible?" While that is a true statement it only validates that christians stole the concept and now those punkassmotherfuckers think they own it exclusively. They get their knickers in a twist because they can't keep what they stole. The "solution/proposal" is nothing more than an disingenuous attempt to control the butt hurt felt by those who have been busted on their fraud...

dcnovice -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 7:19:14 AM)
quote: Do you not see that calling a same sex marriage a marriage is the massive sticking point? I do see that, quite clearly. As I noted earlier in the thread, "Granting 'civil unions' to gays and lesbians lets the majority bask in a sense of generosity toward folks lower on the food chain. Allowing us to use the M-word, on the other hand, makes us equals, and that seems to discomfit some people."

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 7:26:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: The sloppiness of intellectual dishonesty would be on your account, then. I have never stated that marriage is solely a religious thing. I have proposed that the word "marriage" be used to refer solely to a religious rite, but you don't get the whole proposal thing. The core of this arguement is that jeasus phreques get to call it marriage and the gays do not. sorta "my way or the highway" mindset. Yet this mindless shit is posted quote: Instead of attempting to come up with a solution that could be acceptable to pretty much everyone, you are supporting the idea that it's your way or the highway, which hasn't exactly been effective, has it? I don't care what the core argument of the thread is. If you aren't going to respond to my posts according to what I post, then, please don't respond to my posts. Oh, and before I forget, please take notice of the little icon at the lower left of each post.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 7:31:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Without a doubt the most stupid post of the morning. Anyone with a three digit iq and a pulse would recognize that it is not claiming a belief in the supernatural but mearly pointing out that the concept of marriage predates christianity. " Is it not part of the New Testament in the Bible?" While that is a true statement it only validates that christians stole the concept and now those punkassmotherfuckers think they own it exclusively. They get their knickers in a twist because they can't keep what they stole. Temper, temper. At no point in time did I claim that it was in sole possession of Christianity. But, that it has been ensconced in Christianity for nigh on 2000 years, certainly has to mean something, no? If not, then DomKen's stating that marriage was part of the Greek pantheon (which was from 8-900 BC or so) isn't any more solid a claim of "ownership," is it? AND if you two are going to rely on a religious system predating Christianity to defend that marriage isn't a religious thing, well, I'm not sure that was such a grand attempt. quote: The "solution/proposal" is nothing more than an disingenuous attempt to control the butt hurt felt by those who have been busted on their fraud... I have no desire to control your butthurt.

mnottertail -> RE: Another Progressive Victory! (5/21/2013 7:34:43 AM)
I don't see anyone getting butthurt, of course the proposal will go nowhere anyhow.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625