Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Despite recent Supreme Court ruling, the religious continue to oppress the LGBT community under "god's authority"

Despite recent Supreme Court ruling, the religious continue to oppress the LGBT community under "god's authority"

+11
othershoe1030
2seaoat
knothead
EmeraldGhost
Markle
Floridatexan
polecat
TEOTWAWKI
Sal
Wordslinger
boards of FL
15 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Go down  Message [Page 7 of 10]

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

2seaoat wrote:
Well maybe you need to understand the law and constitution. ..... 

I understand the law & Constitution very well, thank you very much .... and I believe both the Congress & the judiciary have in many cases stretched the Interstate Commerce Clause, 14th Amendment, and certain other provisions of the Constitution far beyond their original intent .... and to the detriment of what should be the rightful individual liberties of the people.

2seaoat



So they have stretched the original intent of the 14th amendment? The fifth amendment gave due process protections, but after fighting a war where private discrimination was sanctioned by law, the 14th amendment was not stretched a bit, but was necessary to stop unlawful discrimination and provide every American with due process guaranteed in the 5th amendment.

I understand that you think your organized right to keep other people down, is liberty, but when put into the context of the commerce clause it is the very artificial barriers which interfere with the success of the American free trade zones where citizens can be treated fairly across this nation with uniform standards. I sense you think that having the liberty in one state to declare the rail gage of the rails in your state should not be superceded by the commerce clause and federal preemption,but think the balkanization of America is what our founding fathers wanted where each state to set up separate tariffs and rules which looked more like a corrupt Latin American Oligarchy than a level playing field for the great American economic miracle. No your rights end when they take the rights away from another American citizen. Can you imagine John Deere products could not be sold in Alabama because one of those dreaded Iowans was trying to sell in Alabama....no our forefathers wisdom and the failures of the fifth amendment to guarantee a level playing fields have not been abused. Some just liked the game rigged.

Markle

Markle

SheWrites wrote:I guess I'm weighing in late on all this.  As in the case with the bakery owner who did not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I say again:

You have probably baked a cake or given a marriage license to:

adulterers
liars
pedophiles
wife abusers
child abusers
drug dealers
prostitutes
johns
gluttons
etc
etc
etc

Get over yourself and live a hospitable life.  

I guess I come down on the side of Libertarians on this issue.

I believe that a privately owned business should be able to deal and trade with whomever they wish.

I believe that if government had not prohibited business from doing business with whomever they pleased or living wherever they chose, the majority of the discrimination today would not exist.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
SheWrites wrote:I guess I'm weighing in late on all this.  As in the case with the bakery owner who did not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I say again:

You have probably baked a cake or given a marriage license to:

adulterers
liars
pedophiles
wife abusers
child abusers
drug dealers
prostitutes
johns
gluttons
etc
etc
etc

Get over yourself and live a hospitable life.  

I guess I come down on the side of Libertarians on this issue.

I believe that a privately owned business should be able to deal and trade with whomever they wish.

I believe that if government had not prohibited business from doing business with whomever they pleased or living wherever they chose, the majority of the discrimination today would not exist.

What a friggin' delight that world would be! You go to the meat counter and ask the butcher to cut you a pork loin. He says he's a Muslim or a Jew and he won't touch it. You go to a cafe and the waitress won't serve you coffee or tea because she's a Mormon. Your world, Semi-sane "I know NOSSING! Markle, is as nutty and dysfunctional as you are.

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
SheWrites wrote:I guess I'm weighing in late on all this.  As in the case with the bakery owner who did not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I say again:

You have probably baked a cake or given a marriage license to:

adulterers
liars
pedophiles
wife abusers
child abusers
drug dealers
prostitutes
johns
gluttons
etc
etc
etc

Get over yourself and live a hospitable life.  

I guess I come down on the side of Libertarians on this issue.

I believe that a privately owned business should be able to deal and trade with whomever they wish.

I believe that if government had not prohibited business from doing business with whomever they pleased or living wherever they chose, the majority of the discrimination today would not exist.

What a friggin' delight that world would be!  You go to the meat counter and ask the butcher to cut you a pork loin.  He says he's a Muslim or a Jew and he won't touch it.  You go to a cafe and the waitress won't serve you coffee or tea because she's a Mormon.  Your world, Semi-sane "I know NOSSING! Markle, is as nutty and dysfunctional as you are.  

I would be in a butcher shop, not a counter. If the owner chose to sell pork, because he is a Muslim, chances are good I wouldn't go there in the first place.

If it was owned by a Jew, MAYBE it is a delicatessen too and I would sit down and have a terrific hot pastrami on seeded rye, with mustard and a Kosher dill on the side.

If the café was owned by a Mormon, chances are I know them. Those I know would serve coffee, tea and sodas, depending on the café, perhaps beer and wine. I'm not aware that the Book of Mormon prohibits members from serving or being around the products, just not to consume them.

IF the café owner did not serve those products, I would have to make a decision as to whether the food was good enough for me to not have the beverage I prefer.

Problem solved.

Vikingwoman



EmeraldGhost wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
Really? So you don't believe in civil rights?

Not what I said.  Non-discrimination (sex, religion, race, etc) applies to actions of the government, not private citizens & private sector businesses imo.   Civil rights legislation & judicial rulings to the contrary are wrong-headed and anti-liberty if you ask me.   Hopefully someday they will be overturned.

Where did you ever learn that bigotry is liberty? A little confused aren't you?

Markle

Markle

Vikingwoman wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
Really? So you don't believe in civil rights?

Not what I said.  Non-discrimination (sex, religion, race, etc) applies to actions of the government, not private citizens & private sector businesses imo.   Civil rights legislation & judicial rulings to the contrary are wrong-headed and anti-liberty if you ask me.   Hopefully someday they will be overturned.

Where did you ever learn that bigotry is liberty? A little confused aren't you?

So you do not believe in social and political freedoms for all citizens, only the ones you merit as deserving those freedoms.

Vikingwoman



Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
Really? So you don't believe in civil rights?

Not what I said.  Non-discrimination (sex, religion, race, etc) applies to actions of the government, not private citizens & private sector businesses imo.   Civil rights legislation & judicial rulings to the contrary are wrong-headed and anti-liberty if you ask me.   Hopefully someday they will be overturned.

Where did you ever learn that bigotry is liberty? A little confused aren't you?

So you do not believe in social and political freedoms for all citizens, only the ones you merit as deserving those freedoms.

I have no clue as to what you're talking about.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Vikingwoman wrote:
Where did you ever learn that bigotry is liberty? A little confused aren't you?

Well, it's kinda like the whole Freedom of Speech thing .... if you don't have the right to say things people don't like ... you don't have Freedom of Speech.

If a bakery owner refuses to bake a cake gay themed cake, a muslim themed cake, a christian themed cake, a white-power themed cake, or whatever ... that's their business.

You can organize a protest of that business, a boycott, etc ...I might even join you .... but it's really not the government's business. To invoke the Interstate Commerce clause to force them to do so is just nonsense.

Let me ask you this: Should a black owned bakery be required by law to bake white-power themed cakes? Should a Jewish owned bakery be required to bake an ISIS or HAMAS themed cake? Should a gay owned bakery be required to bake a cake with an anti-gay theme? Should a baker whose child was molested be required to bake a NAMBLA themed cake? All in the name of the interstate Commerce Clause? Really?

And no ... I don't believe there should be such things as "protected classes" in this country ... not when it comes to the private sector. To go back in history a bit ..... if a lunch counter doesn't want to seat or serve blacks ... they ought to be protested & boycotted ... but not required to do so as a matter of law. Conversely, nor should a State or municipal government be allowed to pass laws requiring them to discriminate (segregation laws.)

Back to the issue at hand though ... as I said previously ... this County Clerk should have done her job. Apply the law, not try to make it based upon her own personal beliefs. She is a government functionary when on-duty, not a acting as a private person. I further don't think police officers or soldiers should wear christian cross or any other religious pins on their uniforms. What they do in that respect when not on-duty is their business.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Markle wrote:

I would be in a butcher shop, not a counter.  If the owner chose to sell pork, because he is a Muslim, chances are good I wouldn't go there in the first place.

If it was owned by a Jew, MAYBE it is a delicatessen too and I would sit down and have a terrific hot pastrami on seeded rye, with mustard and a Kosher  dill on the side.

If the café was owned by a Mormon, chances are I know them.  Those I know would serve coffee, tea and sodas, depending on the café, perhaps beer and wine.  I'm not aware that the Book of Mormon prohibits members from serving or being around the products, just not to consume them.

IF the café owner did not serve those products, I would have to make a decision as to whether the food was good enough for me to not have the beverage I prefer.

Problem solved.

No, no, no, no, no ... they should all be sued, fined, prosecuted, jailed ... all in the name of the Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment, Civil Rights Act, Interstate Commerce Clause etc etc    Rolling Eyes

Seriously though ... can a business owner sue a customer for not patronizing their business because of the customer's personal or religious beliefs?

Can a black business owner sue the KKK if it urges it's members not to patronize black owned businesses.   Can a white business owner sue the NAACP because it urges it's members to patronize black owned businesses?
Can a business that displays a sticker on it's storefront indicating it is Christian owned, Black owned, Gay owned, etc be sued?    They are promoting an obvious bias are they not.  


Mind you, I am kind of a "protected class" myself, being half Native American and an atheist.  Do I ask for special protections because of either of those things?   No.   Will I patronize a business that discriminates against me for either of those things?   Well, of course not.  Do I think there should be special laws requiring a Christian owned bakery to bake me an atheist cake?  Absolutely not.   Do I think a gay owned bakery should be required  by law to bake me a cake themed "Support Traditional Marriage?"  Silliness.  Do I expect the government to treat me as they would any other person?   Absolutely!

Let's take this a bit beyond cakes though, shall we .... how about printing shops?   Should a Muslim owned printing shop be required by law to print pro-Israel materials?   Should any printing shops be required by law to print pro-ISIS materials?   Should a black owned printing shop be required to print materials for the KKK?    A Jewish owned printing shop be required to print flyers for some neo-nazi outfit?



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 9/4/2015, 8:29 am; edited 1 time in total

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Colored Drinking Fountain White Drinking Fountain.

We do not serve Niggers in this restaurant.

This hotel does not accept colored guests.

White Restroom

Yessirree sir, bigotry is free speech and we need to adjust our laws accordingly!

What utter, stupid, bigoted bullshit!

Anti-discrimination laws were enacted because before them the system was intolerable and produced conflict instead of harmony.

As many of us see it, if a shop won't serve somebody because of their color, religion, physical shape, etc., that place is a ripe target for arson. Go ahead and change the laws so bigotry can be expressed openly. You're gonna need a lot more cops. Reality

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Wordslinger wrote:
What a friggin' delight that world would be!  You go to the meat counter and ask the butcher to cut you a pork loin.  He says he's a Muslim or a Jew and he won't touch it.  You go to a cafe and the waitress won't serve you coffee or tea because she's a Mormon.  Your world, Semi-sane "I know NOSSING! Markle, is as nutty and dysfunctional as you are.  

Wrong again WS. What's "nutty and dysfunctional" is a world in which a Muslim or Jewish butcher is required by law to cut up your pork chops. Or a black printer is required by law to print KKK materials. Or a Mormon owned cafe is required to serve you coffee and tea.

If you have a problem with a butcher shop that doesn't handle pork chops ... go to a different butcher shop. If you have a problem with a Mormon waitress who won't serve you coffee, take it up with her boss. If the boss backs her up ... don't come back.

(btw .... why did you say "waitress" instead of he more PC "server" ... pretty sexist of you, doncha think?)

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Wordslinger wrote:
Yessirree sir, bigotry is free speech and we need to adjust our laws accordingly!

Ummm, yeah WS.  Bigotry by private citizens is protected by the First Amendment in this country.   The government, OTOH, is precluded from engaging in discrimination by the Constitution.

Should a Mexican immigrant owned printing shop be required by law to print Donald Trump campaign materials?

Why are you afraid to answer any of the hypotheticals I posted in my last few posts?

Sal

Sal

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Let me ask you this:   Should a black owned bakery be required by law to bake white-power themed cakes?   Should a Jewish owned bakery be required to bake an ISIS or HAMAS themed cake?   Should a gay owned bakery be required to bake a cake with an anti-gay theme?  Should a baker whose child was molested be required to bake a NAMBLA themed cake?

So, you think that entire segments of the population who share characteristics such as race, religion, and sexual orientation are equivalent to hate groups and child molesters ....

.... GOP 2016!!

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Maybe online dating sites should be fined and the owners jailed for promoting discrimination in terms of gender, race, height, weight, religion, etc

In 'Wordslinger's' perfect world, I guess they would be? Rolling Eyes

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Salinsky wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:

Let me ask you this:   Should a black owned bakery be required by law to bake white-power themed cakes?   Should a Jewish owned bakery be required to bake an ISIS or HAMAS themed cake?   Should a gay owned bakery be required to bake a cake with an anti-gay theme?  Should a baker whose child was molested be required to bake a NAMBLA themed cake?

So, you think that entire segments of the population who share characteristics such as race, religion, and sexual orientation are equivalent to hate groups and child molesters ....

.... GOP 2016!!

Your words, not mine.   Why don't you answer any of the questions?

Part of individual liberty is being able to choose who you will associate with and who you will not ... for whatever reason.

If you choose to not patronize a business establishment owned by a KKK member, are you not discriminating against them? Maybe you should be required by law to do so ... and fined/jailed if you do not?



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 9/4/2015, 8:51 am; edited 1 time in total

boards of FL

boards of FL

EmeraldGhost wrote:In my view the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one or more women intended for life and usually with the intent of raising children within a family.



Your definition is wrong. If your view of marriage were accurate, two heterosexual senior citizens could not marry. Two sterile people could not marry if your view of marriage were accurate. I pointed this out several pages ago and you stopped responding. Now here you are repeating the same argument again.

Have you any response? Do you care to defend your definition or not?

The bottom line is this: Person A and Person B love each other, live together, and plan on keeping it that way into perpetuity. Our society offers a legal arrangement that adds convenience to that type of relationship. Outside of biblical bullshit, why should Person A and Person B not be allowed to take part in that legal arrangement? How does their arrangement affect you in any way? Who are you to insert yourself into the private lives of others and dictate to them what they can and cannot do? And on what basis?


_________________
I approve this message.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

EmeraldGhost wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Yessirree sir, bigotry is free speech and we need to adjust our laws accordingly!

Ummm, yeah WS.  Bigotry by private citizens is protected by the First Amendment in this country.   The government, OTOH, is precluded from engaging in discrimination by the Constitution.

Should a Mexican immigrant owned printing shop be required by law to print Donald Trump campaign materials?

Why are you afraid to answer any of the hypotheticals I posted in my last few posts?

'Cause your reasoning frightens me, and I recognize your intellectual superiority.. not. And, your hypotheticals are plain stupid. Yes a Mexican printing shop should print things he doesn't like, as long as his place is opened to the public. Or he should get out of that business. Fuck bigots. Fuck people who think bigotry and discrimination is good. Do you remember Nazi Germany? That's your idea of good living?

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

boards of FL wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:In my view the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one or more women intended for life and usually with the intent of raising children within a family.

Your definition is wrong.  If your view of marriage were accurate, two heterosexual senior citizens could not marry.  Two sterile people could not marry if your view of marriage were accurate.  I pointed this out several pages ago and you stopped responding.  Now here you are repeating the same argument again.

You missed the qualifier "usually' in my definition. (I'm quite sure you did that intentionally)

But frankly ... no, I don't see any sense in two people who are not having/raising children together to be married. In fact, I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Government should never have been involved in the first place.

boards of FL wrote:
The bottom line is this:  Person A and Person B love each other, live together, and plan on keeping it that way into perpetuity.

Like Tina Turner said: "What's love got to do with it?"

I love & live with my adult child ... doesn't mean I can or should be able to marry her.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Wordslinger wrote: Do you remember Nazi Germany?  That's your idea of good living?    [/b]

I think your ideas are more akin to Nazi Germany than mine.

In any case .... Godwin's law is now invoked.

Sal

Sal

I don't know what you want me to say ...

... I obviously have no problem with laws preventing discrimination of people based on race, color, religion, national origin, and/or sexual orientation.

You do because you are a bigot.

I get that.

But, equating these segments of our population with hate groups and child molesters does nothing to bolster your argument, and I can't quite fathom why you think it does.

boards of FL

boards of FL

EmeraldGhost wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:In my view the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one or more women intended for life and usually with the intent of raising children within a family.

Your definition is wrong.  If your view of marriage were accurate, two heterosexual senior citizens could not marry.  Two sterile people could not marry if your view of marriage were accurate.  I pointed this out several pages ago and you stopped responding.  Now here you are repeating the same argument again.

You missed the qualifier "usually' in my definition.   (I'm quite sure you did that intentionally)

But frankly ... no, I don't see any sense in two people who are not having/raising children together to be married.   In fact, I think government should get out of the marriage  business altogether.   Government should never have been involved in the first place.



So are you saying that laws should be based upon whether or not you see any sense to them?  

I don't see any sense in why people should eat sour cream.  

I don't see any sense in why people should own assault rifles.

I don't see any sense in why people would need more than one vehicle.

Also, should your loose, subjective definition of words dictate laws for others?



EmeraldGhost wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
The bottom line is this:  Person A and Person B love each other, live together, and plan on keeping it that way into perpetuity.

Like Tina Turner said:   "What's love got to do with it?"  

I love & live with my adult child ... doesn't mean I can or should be able to marry her.



You're not answering the questions here.   Why shouldn't Person A and Person B be allowed to marry?  They are in a loving, monogamous relationship, and they live together.  Society offers a legal arrangement that provides convenience to that type of relationship.  What difference does it make to you if those two people take part in that?  How are you affected in any way by that?  Why should you insert yourself in to their relationship and dictate to them what they can do?

Regarding your child, that is a different type of love and a different type of arrangement entirely; and is hence an entirely different discussion.


_________________
I approve this message.

Sal

Sal

EmeraldGhost wrote:

I love & live with my adult child ... doesn't mean I can or should be able to marry her.


Exits elevator ....

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


https://radicalbookworm.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/the-worst-thing-about-sam-schulman/

Apparently, Mr. Schulman wrote the same unhinged attack in 2009.



The Worst Thing About Sam Schulman

My fellow progressives, I would like you to meet Sam Schulman, author of this atrocious article about gay marriage (found via the Feministing community). Unlike those silly, silly religious folk, Mr. Schulman has a completely rational, not at all ridiculous argument against gay marriage! You see, according to Sam Schulman, The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage (that is actually the title of the article. I am not making this up) is not that it defies divine law, but that it doesn’t perform the essential roles that marriage plays in maintaining the kinship system.

Note to Mr. Schulman: next time you use the kinship system as the foundation of an argument, you might want to ensure that your understanding of kinship is not 2000 years out of date! Just a suggestion.


In order to defend his argument, Mr. Schulman describes “four of the most profound effects of marriage within the kinship system”, which are not at all archaic and creepy. Observe:

The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. This is why marriage between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society ever known. Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood–and sexual accessibility–is defined. Again, until quite recently, the woman herself had little or nothing to say about this, while her parents and the community to which they answered had total control. The guardians of a female child or young woman had a duty to protect her virginity until the time came when marriage was permitted or, more frequently, insisted upon. […]

This most profound aspect of marriage–protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex–is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.

You heard that right. Same-sex marriage is bad because it will interfere with society’s ability to control female sexuality! And we all know that if women’s bodies cease to be treated as a commodity to be traded, society will collapse. Well, I guess the intersection of misogyny and homophobia isn’t purely theoretical after all.

But that’s not all that Mr. Schulman has to say! Oh no, gay marriage also interferes with society’s ability to tell us that certain sexual behaviours are superior to others:

Sexual intercourse between a married couple is licit; sexual intercourse before marriage, or adulterous sex during marriage, is not. Illicit sex is not necessarily a crime, but licit sexual intercourse enjoys a sanction in the moral universe, however we understand it, from which premarital and extramarital copulation is excluded. More important, the illicit or licit nature of heterosexual copulation is transmitted to the child, who is deemed legitimate or illegitimate based on the metaphysical category of its parents’ coition.

Now to live in such a system, in which sexual intercourse can be illicit, is a great nuisance. Many of us feel that licit sexuality loses, moreover, a bit of its oomph. Gay lovers live merrily free of this system. Can we imagine Frank’s family and friends warning him that “If Joe were serious, he would put a ring on your finger”? Do we ask Vera to stop stringing Sally along? Gay sexual practice is not sortable into these categories–licit-if-married but illicit-if-not (children adopted by a gay man or hygienically conceived by a lesbian mom can never be regarded as illegitimate). Neither does gay copulation become in any way more permissible, more noble after marriage.

Whatever would we do without social norms shaming us into unhappy marriages, or into feeling guilty about sex between two consenting adults who happen not to have rings on their fingers? Society would fall apart, I tell you! Why, we wouldn’t even be able to tell children born to unmarried parents that they are “illegitimate” and therefore worth less, or something! (Wait, didn’t the French Revolution do away with that? Now I’m confused.)

Also, maybe my family is really weird or something, but I’m in a long-term heterosexual relationship, and they don’t think that my partner is stringing me along, or feel the need to pressure him into making an honest woman out of me. They’re mostly just happy for us. I guess this means the decline of civilization has already started. I mean, two people in a happy, monogamous but decidedly non-marital relationship? Scandalous!

You may think that after this parade of idiocy, Mr. Schulman has run out of completely nonsensical things to say. Then he hits you with this gem:

But without social disapproval of unmarried sex–what kind of madman would seek marriage?

Apparently Mr. Schulman has such a low opinion of men that he thinks that, were it not for Victorian-style social pressures, no man would ever wish to express his lifelong commitment to someone he loves. If that’s not misandry, I don’t know what is.

Also, apparently being unmarried means you’re not an adult, or something:

Marriage usually takes place at the beginning of adulthood; it changes the status of bride and groom from child in the birth family to adult in a new family. In many societies, such as village India and Jewish Chicagoland, a new bride becomes no more than an unpaid servant to her mother- and sisters-in-law.

How romantic! And also sort of racist.

In contrast, gay weddings are rather middle-aged affairs. My impression is borne out by the one available statistic, from the province of British Columbia, showing that the participants in first-time same-sex weddings are 13 years older, on average, then first-time brides-and-grooms. This feels about right. After all, declaring gay marriage legal will not produce the habit of saving oneself for marriage or create a culture which places a value on virginity or chastity (concepts that are frequently mocked in gay culture precisely because they are so irrelevant to gay romantic life). But virginity and chastity before marriage, license after–these are the burdens of real marriage, honored in spirit if not in letter, creating for women (women as modern as Beyoncé) the right to demand a tangible sacrifice from the men who would adore them.

I guess 95% of the North American population didn’t get the memo about saving oneself for marriage. Unless when Mr. Schulman says “in spirit if not in letter” he means “not at all, ever”.

He also apparently never considered the possibility that same-sex couples are getting married later than opposite-sex couples because they weren’t legally allowed to get married for most of their lifetimes. And personally, I’d rather see people getting married older, once they’re really sure that they’re ready to commit, than as soon as they reach adulthood, in order to prove that they’re grown-up or something.

He also goes on for a while about how gay people don’t form kinship ties with their in-laws, and therefore gay marriage leads to incest or something. And then there’s this:

Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage–much less three, as I have done–were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.

Oh dear. I could write a doctoral thesis on everything that is wrong with this sentence. I guess at least we now know why he’s so obsessed with the incest taboo.

And here’s what will happen if those gay people start tainting the “burden” of marriage with their gosh-darned egalitarian partnerships:

There is no doubt that women and children have suffered throughout human history from being over-protected and controlled. The consequences of under-protection and indifference will be immeasurably worse. In a world without kinship, women will lose their hard-earned status as sexual beings with personal autonomy and physical security. Children will lose their status as nonsexual beings.

That’s right, ladies! Men have been treating your bodies as their personal property for all these years in order to protect you! In fact, rape results not because men think women are property and they deserve access to our bodies at all times, but because gay people want to get married! Also: pedophilia. Nice fear-mongering there, but no.

Overall, Schulman’s analysis of marriage is pretty grim. At no point does he portray it as something that people might actually want, as a means for two people to express their commitment and solidify their partnership. For Schulman, marriage is simply men trading in their “dream of gratifying [their] immediate erotic desires” (again, I really am not making this up) in order to gain full control over one woman’s body. It doesn’t seem to occur to him that these wonderful kinship structures he goes on about are the things that many of us call patriarchy or kyrarchy or everything that is wrong with society, and are actively working to dismantle through means completely independent of (though, of course, favourable to) gay marriage. If you ask me, a shift in the definition of marriage from an exchange intended to stabilize patriarchal kinship structures to a loving partnership between equals can only be beneficial to everyone.

Except Sam Schulman, but he’s not invited anyway.

*************



Markle

Markle

Vikingwoman wrote:
Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
Really? So you don't believe in civil rights?

Not what I said.  Non-discrimination (sex, religion, race, etc) applies to actions of the government, not private citizens & private sector businesses imo.   Civil rights legislation & judicial rulings to the contrary are wrong-headed and anti-liberty if you ask me.   Hopefully someday they will be overturned.

Where did you ever learn that bigotry is liberty? A little confused aren't you?

So you do not believe in social and political freedoms for all citizens, only the ones you merit as deserving those freedoms.

I have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Why am I not surprised?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 7 of 10]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Despite recent Supreme Court ruling, the religious continue to oppress the LGBT community under "god's authority"

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum