| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/07/2009 11:58:23 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I hope he saw I wasn't the one that brought up bestiality... |
No, that would have been me when I asked the questiopn as to why that, pedophilia, incest, and/or polygamy always seem to get brought up every time the question is raised as to why gay marriage should be acceptable.....it's bullshit and subterfuge.
We're NOT discussing anything BUT gay marriage, gay rights, and the back and forth that goes with it.
That question was never answered, and all of a sudden, you're acting like it hasn't been done.
It always seems to be brought up in the context of, "Well, if it's okay for me to marry another man, why can't I marry my brother, Golden Retriever, 10 year old girlfriend?"....you know what I'm talking about, too.
Why do the anti-gay rights people try to go there?
You never answered that question.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:59:45 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
My response was to Jeb's point that a church can "make their decisions based on the premise of their religion". I was stating that, given time, once gays have gained the foothold they seek on "marriage", there will be something else they'll go after (or the left leaning liberal camp), and I can foresee them taking on the church and attempt to force the church to conduct gay "marriage" ceremonies, even if the church has made "their decision (not to) based on the premise of their religion". |
I would stand there beside you with a protest sign that states that freedom of religion and beliefs are an inalienable right of the church.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:03:11 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Getting back to the media it might be beneficial to have people chime up on what sources they consider to be the last bastions of good journalism? I tend to get my news from NPR and Google News, but on Google News tend to search out The Washington Post and New York Times. Anybody else have sources they consider to do a good job of removing opinion/analysis from an article unless explicitly stated it is included? |
My wife is the final authority on everything in my world......8>)
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:04:42 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's okay for any church to make their decisons based on the premise of their religion, that IS guaranteed by the constitution ... |
Just wait. Once gay "marriage" gains a foothold, the next thing they'll go after is forcing churches to perform marriage ceremonies of gay couples - or sue the churches if they deny them. We've already seen lawsuits filed against wedding photographers that were not comfortable shooting a gay "marriage". |
Yes indeed... and just like the blacks they too will seek equal treatment... what is this world coming to? In the good ole days them uppety gays would have got what was coming to them.
I never cease to be amazed by this type of attitude. How can the marriage of two people in love possibly have a negative effect on your lifestyle.
Ray |
My response was to Jeb's point that a church can "make their decisions based on the premise of their religion". I was stating that, given time, once gays have gained the foothold they seek on "marriage", there will be something else they'll go after (or the left leaning liberal camp), and I can foresee them taking on the church and attempt to force the church to conduct gay "marriage" ceremonies, even if the church has made "their decision (not to) based on the premise of their religion". |
Sorry Barry, but that argument has no support in law. Even the most simple constitutional analysis will tell you that you cannot force a church to perform ceremonies that are against its beliefs. And further, I know of no gay person who would like to be married in a church that does not support his choice of partner. Lastly, I will give you a piece of personal truth: I married a person whose religion I don't share. We had a heck of a time finding a person within his faith who would marry us. This was never a legal case, but one of finding the right person who supported our union. We did, and the same will happen for those of the same sex who marry.
ETA: Sorry for the hijack. To answer the original question: No, she's not being railroaded. She just said something sensational and the media loves that sort of thing because people eat it up.
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 12:05:38. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:14:15 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Sorry Barry, but that argument has no support in law. |
Point taken. However, laws CAN be changed, and unfortunately are when they shouldn't be at times. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:20:53 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Sorry Barry, but that argument has no support in law. |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Point taken. However, laws CAN be changed, and unfortunately are when they shouldn't be at times. |
That's true, but trying to change a law to make a church go against its beliefs is gonna be a hard one to fly.
You and I, for instance, are poles apart on gay marriage, but I think we'd be united in the fight to allow churches to follow their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:47:22 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by frisca:
Sorry Barry, but that argument has no support in law. |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Point taken. However, laws CAN be changed, and unfortunately are when they shouldn't be at times. |
That's true, but trying to change a law to make a church go against its beliefs is gonna be a hard one to fly.
You and I, for instance, are poles apart on gay marriage, but I think we'd be united in the fight to allow churches to follow their beliefs. |
... as would I.
However to those who remain convinced as to the sancrosanctity of the church in this regard I would point out that a judge could, in an "obiter dictum" opine that to avail itself of the exclusive right of denial, the church would have to forego certain tax exemptions.
The ensuing results of such an opinion could give rise to s plethora of legal activities that would be very interesting to watch.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 12:48:36 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by frisca:
Sorry Barry, but that argument has no support in law. |
Point taken. However, laws CAN be changed, and unfortunately are when they shouldn't be at times. |
I for one would be very interested in examples of those laws that were or are proposed to be changed that you think shouldn't.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 01:14:42 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I hear a bunch of doublespeak about polygamy. Don's position was the most consistent. I hope he saw I wasn't the one that brought up bestiality... |
I wrote "one" instead of "you" :) |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 01:34:30 PM · #110 |
Just curious, why is it a leap to think that churches could be forced to perform same-sex marriages?
Some in this thread (either directly or indirectly) have already been told they were wrong for their opinion, and that they needed to change it (though probably not that blatantly).
Why would the church be any different? What will stop the discrimination lawsuits? |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 01:39:24 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Just curious, why is it a leap to think that churches could be forced to perform same-sex marriages?
Some in this thread (either directly or indirectly) have already been told they were wrong for their opinion, and that they needed to change it (though probably not that blatantly).
Why would the church be any different? What will stop the discrimination lawsuits? |
I can explain, but I don't want to hijack this thread. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 02:14:12 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Just curious, why is it a leap to think that churches could be forced to perform same-sex marriages? |
The Iowa Supreme Court decision spoke directly to this issue -- saying it (the right to marry) affects only civil law/civil marriage, and the benefits and responsibilities which accompany it..
Churches generally perform marriages for members of their own congregation. My guess is that most sects which are opposed to gay marriage will have few if any gay congregants.
The issue is different if they rent their facilities out to the general public to hold their own events -- if they do that, they can't discriminate (any more than a hotel or restaurant could) on the basis of gender (or race, etc.) and maintain their tax-exempt status (which is essentially a governement subsidy in support of the church); this is addressed in the "public accomodations" language of the civil rights statutes.
On the actual thread topic, I think maybe radio commentator Dave Ross had it right (close paraphrase): "If her goal is to promote heterosexual marriage, well ... thanks to those pictures, millions of adolescent boys will not only wake up tomorrow heterosexual, many are considering becoming Christian."
The PR mantra has always been "Any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right." |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 02:32:46 PM · #113 |
Hey Paul's back! You never answered my question...
Haha. That Dave Ross quote is pretty funny.
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 14:33:27. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 02:47:53 PM · #114 |
AFAIK, the case before the California Supreme Court regarding Prop 8 does not directly address the constitutionality of the text of the propostion -- I believe it only addresses whether the process used to enact it conforms to the requirements of the Constitution for making a change of this nature; they are essentially debating whether Prop 8 is a "revision" or a "reform" and if the appropriate procedures were followed.
As to if the Court decided to uphold it; courts have made "wrong" decisions before, so I would certainly disagree with it. It's hard for me to see how you can have a Constitution with provisions which are in direct conflict with each other -- it would become as meaningless a guide as, say, the Bible.
When there are laws which seem unconstitutional and/or unjust, those with a stake in the matter can respond by attempting further legislative/judicial remedies, by engaging in civil disobedience, or by attempting revolutionary overthrow of the governement. In this matter, I think the relative percentages of these occurrances would be about 95%, 5%, and 0% respectively, at least for the near future.
Was that it? Your question was a ways back ... |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 02:57:00 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by karmat:
Just curious, why is it a leap to think that churches could be forced to perform same-sex marriages?
Some in this thread (either directly or indirectly) have already been told they were wrong for their opinion, and that they needed to change it (though probably not that blatantly).
Why would the church be any different? What will stop the discrimination lawsuits? |
I can explain, but I don't want to hijack this thread. |
Why not? The origional poster hijacked it from the get go. Not one word has been said about a railroad. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 03:00:12 PM · #116 |
| You answered it Paul and it was a good answer. Thanks! |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 03:36:27 PM · #117 |
my rights ( as an american ) are the same as your rights ( as an american ) whether or not you believe that is your own decision. but, the fact that because your religion tells you gay marriage is wrong doesn't mean that you are correct in believing that.
what i believe you may not believe, but that doesn't mean what i believe is right, and what you believe is wrong - or vice-versa. yet, what either of us believe should NOT hinder the equality that our nation was supposedly built upon.
the union of two people should be a simple thing, not a quagmire of lawyers, and gov intervention.
it's hard to seperate church and state when the members of our government - for the most part - are believers in one faith or another - leaning toward one. and that fact takes away, complicates, and ruins the premise of equal rights to all. nothing is unbiased.
as far as the media goes. i think, mainly, they are there for our entertainment, and should be taken with a large chunck of salt... unfortunatley ignorance is bliss, and the media loves how easy that makes their pocket books bulge...
i live in vermont, and our legistlature recently passed a bill allowing gay marriage. i'm glad our elected officials can think for the people instead of soley themselves/interests.
if you think otherwise post one of those big 'TAKE BACK VERMONT' banners in your yard...
ETA: marriage isn't a religious term as far as i know. it's just come to believed to be so.
Message edited by author 2009-05-14 15:38:49.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 07:34:01 AM · #118 |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 06:44:54 PM · #119 |
I was going to mention this. She got fired because she wasn't doing her job and apparently wasn't a peach to work with, regardless of this gay marriage thing... I read that somewhere else but I forget where now. I think something AOL news linked me too when I checked my email.
As far as the repeated mentioning of her gay marriage stance, it's a way for people to recognize who is being talked about. At least that's what it seems like to me... as a person who does her best to stay out of the line of fire of mainstream media. If anyone mentioned her name to me I'd say "who?" but if they mentioned the incident, THEN I would know because I had heard the story through the grapevine. Actually in the Gay Marriage thread from Doc.
It's like you know... "the guy who won all those swimming medals" "the pageant girl who opposes gay marriage".
But like other's said. It's all entertainment. They keep talking about her because we keep talking about her.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/16/2025 05:28:28 AM EDT.
