RE: Another Progressive Victory!

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Another Progressive Victory!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Another Progressive Victory!

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 10:23:24 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

I think it's hysterical, the traditional 98%, being hetero-sexual, is permitting the historical homosexual 2% to destroy one of its institutions.

Which institution is being destroyed?

quote:

How is this possible without the complicit activity of the Progressive liberal left?

I would have thought that equaity before the law would also be a republicrat, conservative,right position also.

quote:

I swear, liberals are more destructive than the atom bomb, acting with wild abandon and giving no thought to the destruction being wrought. Liberals actually applaud it, rationalizing its inherent betterment over centuries of civilization which their betterment is actively destroying.

Most people call that progress

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 61

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 10:56:46 AM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The federal government will not and cannot mandate that any particular preacher has to marry any particular anything. If it would be mandated it would be done at the state level.

Maybe not right now, but they could, in the future. Look at what government is forcing religious organizations into doing a la Obamacare.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 62

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 11:03:44 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Yeah, nothing.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 63

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 11:07:00 AM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

I gave a pretty good example in Post #26. It doesn't have to be the federal government; it just needs to be some judge (who may not have even been elected) in a civil court ...

I don't see what is so difficult about seperating the government from religion. The PPLs certainly seem to be okay with seperating religion from the government, any other time and, in this case, we even have an amendment that specifically states that the government can't tell religion what to do (unless you're a polygamist, of course).

I guess the left has no issue with government telling religion what to do; just with religion telling government what to do.

I guess we need to only offer them cake, when they're too full from dinner.

Peace and comfort,

Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 64

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 11:09:26 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

I think it's hysterical, the traditional 98%, being hetero-sexual, is permitting the historical homosexual 2% to destroy one of its institutions. How is this possible without the complicit activity of the Progressive liberal left? I swear, liberals are more destructive than the atom bomb, acting with wild abandon and giving no thought to the destruction being wrought. Liberals actually applaud it, rationalizing its inherent betterment over centuries of civilization which their betterment is actively destroying.

Pardon?

How precisely is expanding the institution destroying it? Will straight people be unable to marry? Really what possible harm can be done to straight people's marriages by letting gay couples marry?

I'd really like an opponent of marriage equality to actually answer those questions.

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 65

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 11:13:10 AM

VoluptuousVenus

Posts: 5
Joined: 10/26/2012
Status: offline

Churches provide one of the types of ceremonies available for couples to be legally married. You don't have to get them involved at all. Churches have always had the freedom to refuse to marry people. This freedom should not be affected simply because homosexual couples gain the legal right to find somebody who is willing to provide them with a ceremony.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 66

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 11:27:50 AM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I guess the left has no issue with government telling religion what to do; just with religion telling government what to do.

Peace and comfort,

Michael

Where exactly is the left telling religion what to do?
They can marry or refuse to marry anyone they want.
What the left is doing in this case is to inform religion that they cannot tell the government what to do any more.

In all states, a court official can perform a marriage ceremony. Churches are right now telling court officials what they can and cannot do in most states. Is that a violation (or at least against the spirit) of the first amendment?

You seem to have it backwards in your post.
Are court officials telling churches who they are and are not allowed to conduct ceremonies for? (with the exception of polygamists)

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 67

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 12:18:03 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
What I see here is the government digging it's claws deeper into what originally was a religious practice (marriage). It violates the 1st amendment but, let's go a little further:

Marriage was not originally a religious practice it was first a social institution. The concept of marriage is found in cultures world wide across almost all cultures and without regards to religion. The institution was so important in most early societies that they did invent deities, usually goddesses, to be the patrons of marriage, see for instance Hera in Greece.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 68

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 12:22:26 PM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

Its much better to have knowledge than go thru life guessing wrongly.
After all you cannot legally marry a 13 year old any more, so its been re-defined, more than once.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Profile

Post #: 69

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 12:39:55 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The federal government will not and cannot mandate that any particular preacher has to marry any particular anything. If it would be mandated it would be done at the state level.

Maybe not right now, but they could, in the future. Look at what government is forcing religious organizations into doing a la Obamacare.

What for fucks sake is the govt. forcing on religion via the aca?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 70

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 12:43:05 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Its much better to have knowledge than go thru life guessing wrongly.
After all you cannot legally marry a 13 year old any more, so its been re-defined, more than once.

I thought it was legal in kentucky at 12 unless it was your sister.

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Profile

Post #: 71

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 12:44:26 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Hes got this rather convoluted bullshit as they all do over in teabaggerville, that having insurance companies underwrite birth control prescriptions is forcing the catamites of the Catholic Church to force their members to eat estrogen or some such shit.

You know, kinda like the argument that marriage equality is forcing you to become a homosexual and marry your uncle or some shit.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 72

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 12:45:27 PM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Hes got this rather convoluted bullshit as they all do over in teabaggerville, that having insurance companies underwrite birth control prescriptions is forcing the catamites of the Catholic Church to force their members to eat estrogen or some such shit.

You know, kinda like the argument that marriage equality is forcing you to become a homosexual and marry your uncle or some shit.

Not your uncle, your goat. Don't you read TEApaganda?

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 73

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 12:47:12 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I gave a pretty good example in Post #26. It doesn't have to be the federal government; it just needs to be some judge (who may not have even been elected) in a civil court ...

I don't see what is so difficult about seperating the government from religion. The PPLs certainly seem to be okay with seperating religion from the government, any other time and, in this case, we even have an amendment that specifically states that the government can't tell religion what to do (unless you're a polygamist, of course).

I guess the left has no issue with government telling religion what to do; just with religion telling government what to do.

I guess we need to only offer them cake, when they're too full from dinner.

Peace and comfort,

Michael

At one time church attendence was manditory and the penalities were quite harsh for repeat offenders. The church controled who was allowed to get married and to whom.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 74

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 2:28:13 PM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

honestly? the fact that the US is several decades behind (other countries) is not much to cheer about.. imo.. not to mention that a change in state/federal govt can reverse such "victories".. your political system sucks.. just sayin'

Ahem ... January, 2013:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

Excuse me, but ... April 23, 2013:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/04/gay-marriage.html

Hmm, mass protests, only 50-60 % public approval, my my.

I don't see Switzerland, Italy, or some other Euro countries on the list at all.

Perhaps your definition of decades is different than others.

(in reply to tj444)

Profile

Post #: 75

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/16/2013 5:29:55 PM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The federal government will not and cannot mandate that any particular preacher has to marry any particular anything. If it would be mandated it would be done at the state level.

Maybe not right now, but they could, in the future. Look at what government is forcing religious organizations into doing a la Obamacare.

What for fucks sake is the govt. forcing on religion via the aca?

Enjoy the Kool Aid and willful ignorance.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 76

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/17/2013 11:13:15 AM

GotSteel

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
I very much agree with you that everyone has a right to be treated equally and as such I'm against your marriage and strongly in favor of you having to refer to it as a civil union.

If I'm reading Michael correctly, all civil benefits will be attached to the "civil union" part. The "marriage" part will be but a subset of civil unions and will confer no benefits outside of any a religious institution confers. That is, in the eyes of government, a marriage is but a civil union like a JoP civil union, or a same sex civil union. All civil unions get the same civil benefits.

Do I really need to remind people of the problem with and point out the bigotry of seperate but equal?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 77

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/17/2013 11:37:13 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Do I really need to remind people of the problem with and point out the bigotry of seperate but equal?

Actually, separating religious and civil unions seems a way of getting government out of the establishment business without stepping on the free expression clause.

K.

(in reply to GotSteel)

Profile

Post #: 78

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/17/2013 11:38:53 AM

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Not exactly. I see "marriage" as the pervue of religion and "civil unions" as the pervue of the government.

So then if a church decides that same sex marriages are legit then they can marry lesbians and gays? One of the problems with allowing "religion" to decide this is that religions vary on their opinions on the topic.

And out of curiosity, if a "marriage" and a "civil union" are identical in every way then what exactly are you gaining by the distinction. I think I'd be OK with your viewpoint if it had been setup that way from the start. But as it is, "the right to marry" is a real thing with history behind it.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 79

RE: Another Progressive Victory! - 5/17/2013 12:24:41 PM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Not exactly. I see "marriage" as the pervue of religion and "civil unions" as the pervue of the government.

So then if a church decides that same sex marriages are legit then they can marry lesbians and gays? One of the problems with allowing "religion" to decide this is that religions vary on their opinions on the topic.
And out of curiosity, if a "marriage" and a "civil union" are identical in every way then what exactly are you gaining by the distinction. I think I'd be OK with your viewpoint if it had been setup that way from the start. But as it is, "the right to marry" is a real thing with history behind it.

In a nutshell, Jeff, yes, if a church decides that it will officiate the wedding of two same sex participants, then that would be a marriage, but still just a civil union in the eyes of the law.

_____________________________

What I support: