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 3 of 10]

boards of FL

boards of FL

Question for the religious homophobes:  Let's say you have to go to the clerk's office to file some sort of ordinary paperwork - a change of title on a new car, for example.  The rep at the clerk's office then informs you that she worships Zeus, and Zeus commands her to not perform the transaction that you happen to need unless the person requiring the transactions also worships Zeus.  And just to insure that you don't simply say "I worship Zeus as well" in order to complete your transaction, you must prove that do in fact worship Zeus by displaying your "Mark of Zeus", which is a full back tattoo image of Zeus.

Is that perfectly OK to you?  Do you see any problem there? Would you feel it an infringement on that woman's rights if you were to require her - in spite of her commitment to Zeus - to issue changes of title to people who do not also follow Zeus? In fact, wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to conclude that this woman is bat-shit crazy, and then fire her? Should her whole judgement be brought into question?


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:

Let's say that the ECUA bill is in my wife's name and I need to make an inquiry.  I'll have access to that since I am the spouse of the person whose name is on the account.  Let's say my wife is in the hospital and I want to visit during hours where only family members are allowed to visit.  There again, I'll have access since my wife and I are legally married.


Au contraire, Boards.  On more than one occasion, as a married couple, we have had to declare who could have access to the account if it was in my name or his name alone.  This, coming after I tried to discuss a bill - cable company I think - and found that I could not have any say on the account as it was in his name. When giving consent to another person to access the account it was no matter if married or not.  I have access to my mother's accounts simply because she has authorized me on the accounts.


I guess it depends on who you talk to. Our cable bill is in my wife's name and I have discussed everything from billing, to tech support, to changes in our subscription with ATT reps on the basis that I was the husband. Perhaps I got the right rep.

If you don't like that example, insert any other example. Employee/Spouse health insurance through a private employer, for example. Death without a will. Etc. Etc. Marriage makes those things possible/easier to deal with.


_________________
I approve this message.

2seaoat



What would you like to know about Fair Housing Law?

You dropped out of real estate right? To tough for you?


Real Estate tough....easiest test I ever took. Got up from the test, and the person next to me, asked......"are you giving up".......nope....I am done. Actually taking the State exam for waste haulers was a more difficult than the broker's exam. I find real estate professionals for the most part one dimensional parrots who have rote memorization of simple statute and superficial legal concepts without the slightest idea of the complexities of legal concepts which developed those bullet points they memorize. Fair Housing laws require both an understanding of the statutes and the constitution. You have proven over the years that you can cut and paste statute, but you are entirely clueless about the constitution and particularly the bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment. What I find particularly glaring is your racism in light of the memorandum of understanding between the very organization you allege you teach for and HUD which clearly outlines that real housing discrimination happens.....which you regularly discount and play one of the forums biggest bigots. No a monkey can memorize a statute, and being that most real estate professionals barely understand the bullet points which you teach like a first grade teacher teaching the spelling of a word.....comprehension and conceptualization are not your strong points.....but thinking real estate is too tough....now I think you should be teaching at second city.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

This is how seriously she takes "God's Law". She's been married four times and had kids here and there. So glad the media has decided this is important.

A controversial US court clerk who has cited “God’s law” while refusing to issue same-sex marriages licenses has has herself been married four times, it has been revealed.

Rowan County courthouse clerk Kim Davis has defied a US supreme court order demanding she issue marriage licenses to couples – both gay and straight – at her office in Kentucky.

Davis, who was only elected clerk last fall, has publicly claimed her duty to God overrides the law of the United States.

“I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage,” Davis said in a statement.

“To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/02/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-divorced-three-times

boards of FL

boards of FL

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw


GOP 2016! Praise Juuuuheeeezzzzus!!!1

The woman refusing to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky - as EmeraldGhost pointed out - has been married four times.

She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. Those twins were actually fathered by her third husband, but were adopted by her second husband.


_________________
I approve this message.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

How long will this tail continue to wag the dog? What will it take to bring this GOP into the 20th, much less the 21st century? Maybe a plague?

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

boards of FL wrote:
One more time for PkrBum.  I'm not talking about government benefits.  I'm talking about basic conveniences that come about as a result of being married.   And I'm pretty sure I made that plainly obvious from my comments.  

Let's say that the ECUA bill is in my wife's name and I need to make an inquiry.  I'll have access to that since I am the spouse of the person whose name is on the account.  Let's say my wife is in the hospital and I want to visit during hours where only family members are allowed to visit.  There again, I'll have access since my wife and I are legally married.


Since when has ECUA asked to see anyone's marriage license to check on a bill? Our ECUA bill is in my wife's name & I handle all of our bills ... they've never queried me as to our relationship ... just wanted to know the account number. All they want is the money.

And what hospital is denying homosexual partners visitation? (in recent years)    Since when have hospitals even demanded proof someone is a family member for visitation purposes ... they pretty much have always just taken one's word for it.

But hey, let's turn our whole society upside down & create a bunch of new government bennies over things that are really non-issues (false issues?), all for the sake of making a few people feel better about themselves.



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 9/2/2015, 11:21 am; edited 1 time in total

boards of FL

boards of FL

EmeraldGhost wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
One more time for PkrBum.  I'm not talking about government benefits.  I'm talking about basic conveniences that come about as a result of being married.   And I'm pretty sure I made that plainly obvious from my comments.  

Let's say that the ECUA bill is in my wife's name and I need to make an inquiry.  I'll have access to that since I am the spouse of the person whose name is on the account.  Let's say my wife is in the hospital and I want to visit during hours where only family members are allowed to visit.  There again, I'll have access since my wife and I are legally married.


Since when has ECUA asked to see anyone's marriage license to check on a bill?

What hospital is denying homosexual partners visitation? (in recent years)    Since when have hospitals even demanded proof someone is a family member for visitation purposes ... they pretty much have always just taken one's word for it.

But hey, let's turn our whole society upside down over a bunch of things that are really non-issues, all for the sake of making a few people feel better about themselves.



If you don't like those examples, then defer to my other examples of employee/spouse health insurance and what happens when someone dies in the absence of a will.

But aside from that, how is allowing gay people to legally marry the same thing as "turning our whole society upside down"?

Can you give me any good reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry?


_________________
I approve this message.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Boards I am beginning to think you were the product of a homosexual union.....

boards of FL

boards of FL

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Boards I am beginning to think you were the product of a homosexual union.....


No. I'm just someone fortunate enough to have grown up without being indoctrinated into a faith of hate and ignorance, as you clearly have.


_________________
I approve this message.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

boards of FL wrote:
If you don't like those examples, then defer to my other examples of employee/spouse health insurance and what happens when someone dies in the absence of a will.

Health insurance is up to the employer & health insurance company. There was no law saying homosexual partners couldn't be included on one's health insurance.

As to wills ... if I wanted my worldly goods to go to someone else other than my family members upon my death ... I should have written a will.

In at least one State I've lived in .... in the absence of a will .... by law 50% goes to surviving spouse & 50% split among the children of the deceases. If you want to cut your spouse or any of your children out of that you write a will! It's not that hard. You can download one of the internet, get a couple competent witnesses, have it notarized, and you're good to go.


boards of FL wrote:
But aside from that, how is allowing gay people to legally marry the same thing as "turning our whole society upside down"?

Because it's not "marriage." Not from an evolutionary & historical cultural standpoint. From a bio-evolutionary & historical/cultural standpoint marriage is" the union, intended for life, of one man & one or more women, and that usually has the result of creating & raising children. "Marriage" (as I defined above) is what creates human societies ... it's what bonds previously unrelated family groups together causing them to become,well, related. This goes way back into pre-history. Homosexual partnerships just do not do that & never have. (I could go more into that .... but I'll leave it stand for a moment to let it sink in)

The government bennies taxpayers in this country currently provide to the "marriage" relationship were originally created in recognition of the fact women (wives) historically, in most cases, did not have the opportunity to have the same lifetime earnings & career opportunities as men (husbands.) Now perhaps that idea is a bit outdated & we need to revisit what government benefits are to be provided to the official marriage relationship ... doesn't mean we need to create a whole new definition of marriage that flies in the face of thousands upon thousands of years of evolution & human culture.

You wanna talk about civil unions ... yeah, we could talk about that. But the arguments for any government/legal benefits to be ascribed to such need to stand on their own two legs and not on some sort of imagined equivalence to "marriage" (as I defined above)

Name me one society in the history of mankind (the last 20 years or so excepted) that has ever recognized homosexual partnerships as being the equivalent (same thing) as traditional marriage?

Sure, there have always been homosexual partnerships to some degree or other in tolerant societies .... but it ain't the same thing as marriage. Never have been, never will be.
[/quote]

boards of FL

boards of FL

EmeraldGhost wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
One more time for PkrBum.  I'm not talking about government benefits.


But hey, let's turn our whole society upside down & create a bunch of new government bennies over things that are really non-issues (false issues?), all for the sake of making a few people feel better about themselves.



What a great edit you made there.

What? Was your comment not off base enough as it stood originally? You felt the need to go back and make it even less relevant to what you're quoting and responding to?


_________________
I approve this message.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

boards of FL wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:Boards I am beginning to think you were the product of a homosexual union.....


No.  I'm just someone fortunate enough to have grown up without being indoctrinated into a faith of hate and ignorance, as you clearly have.

Well, I, for one have been a-theist all my life & was raised in a pretty libertarian minded household .... so you can't play that fiddle on me!

I have no religious thoughts one way or the other concerning homosexuals.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw


GOP 2016!  Praise Juuuuheeeezzzzus!!!1

The woman refusing to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky - as EmeraldGhost pointed out - has been married four times.  

She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband.  Those twins were actually fathered by her third husband, but were adopted by her second husband.

I was trying my best to stay out of this one. But this whole thing has now "crossed the rubicon" (to use the newest overused catch phrase).
More like it's gone down the rabbit hole.
If what is in that report is actually true, then this whole episode has now gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
And by the way, that last cliche is my own creation. lol

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

boards of FL wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
One more time for PkrBum.  I'm not talking about government benefits.


But hey, let's turn our whole society upside down & create a bunch of new government bennies over things that are really non-issues (false issues?), all for the sake of making a few people feel better about themselves.



What a great edit you made there.

What?  Was your comment not off base enough as it stood originally?  You felt the need to go back and make it even less relevant to what you're quoting and responding to?

Not sure what edit you're talking about. I often edit things right after I post them.

I have no issues with homosexuals wanting to partner with each other ... to whatever degree they want to be partners .... they can even have a private ceremony & pretend their partnership is the same thing as "marriage" .... I'm kinda live & let live in that respect, and I think most people in this country are nowadays (a few Christian fundamentalists and pretty much all Muslims excepted.)

I do have an issue with government recognition of homosexual partnerships as being the same thing as "marriage" and the taxpayer benefits provided thereof.

Actually, I'd prefer government got out of the whole marriage business altogether and let it be a private matter .... I'm not expecting that to happen anytime soon though.

(be forewarned ..... I may edit this post ... calm down now, doesn't mean I'm trying to hide anything Laughing )

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw


GOP 2016!  Praise Juuuuheeeezzzzus!!!1

The woman refusing to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky - as EmeraldGhost pointed out - has been married four times.  

She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband.  Those twins were actually fathered by her third husband, but were adopted by her second husband.

I was trying my best to stay out of this one.  But this whole thing has now "crossed the rubicon" (to use the newest overused catch phrase).  
More like it's gone down the rabbit hole.  
If what is in that report is actually true,  then this whole episode has now gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.  
And by the way,  that last cliche is my own creation.  lol


And ... she's a DEMOCRAT!!!!    Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing


"'Curioser and curioser,' cried Alice"

boards of FL

boards of FL

EmeraldGhost wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
If you don't like those examples, then defer to my other examples of employee/spouse health insurance and what happens when someone dies in the absence of a will.

Health insurance is up to the employer & health insurance company.   There was no law saying homosexual partners couldn't be included on one's health insurance.



Employers will often offer health insurance plans for the legal spouse of the employee.  In a world of gay marriage bans, that obviously discriminates against people living in long-term, monogamous gay marriages.



EmeraldGhost wrote:As to wills ... if I wanted my worldly goods to go to someone else other than my family members upon my death ... I should have written a will.



But if you don't have a will and you pass away, your belongings will naturally default to your spouse in the event that you are married.  In a world of gay marriage bans, this policy discriminates against gay people living in long term, monogamous relationships.



EmeraldGhost wrote:In at least one State I've lived in .... in the absence of a will .... by law 50% goes to surviving spouse & 50% split among the children of the deceases.  If you want to cut your spouse or any of your children out of that you write a will!   It's not that hard.  You can download one of the internet, get a couple competent witnesses, have it notarized, and you're good to go.



Great.  But if you don't have a will...

You're exhibiting an uncanny ability of missing the point here.



EmeraldGhost wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
But aside from that, how is allowing gay people to legally marry the same thing as "turning our whole society upside down"?

Because it's not "marriage."  Not from an evolutionary & historical cultural standpoint.  From a bio-evolutionary & historical/cultural standpoint marriage is"  the union, intended for life, of one man & one or more women, and that usually has the result of creating & raising children.   "Marriage" (as I defined above) is what creates human societies ... it's what bonds previously unrelated family groups together causing them to become,well, related.   This goes way back into pre-history.  Homosexual partnerships just do not do that & never have.  (I could go more into that .... but I'll leave it stand for a moment to let it sink in)



So now you're going to play the semantics game.  That doesn't work.  If we apply the logic of your "bio-evolutionary" argument, sterile people would be excluded from marriage.  So people with bad genetics, old people, etc, they would all be excluded from marriage on that basis.  

There is no argument to be made from a historical basis.   Today, we need to have good reasons backing our policy - as opposed to "well, that's the way it has always been done".  We used to stone adulterous women to death, own slaves, cut off people's hands for theft, etc.   From a historical perspective, these are all great things!  Right?



EmeraldGhost wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
One more time for PkrBum.  I'm not talking about government benefits.

The government bennies taxpayers in this country currently provide to the "marriage" relationship were originally created in recognition of the fact women (wives) historically, in most cases, did not have the opportunity to have the same lifetime earnings & career opportunities as men (husbands.)   Now perhaps that idea is a bit outdated & we need to revisit what government benefits are to be provided to the official marriage relationship ... doesn't mean we need to create a whole new definition of marriage that flies in the face of thousands upon thousands of years of evolution & human culture.



No one is talking about government "bennies".  You're not responding to a post about government "bennies", so you're basically talking to yourself here.  If you want to discuss government "bennies" and marriage, that would be a broad knock against marriage in general, gay or straight.  But that isn't the discussion at hand here.  We're discussing discrimination.  Have you anything to say in response to the discussion at hand?



EmeraldGhost wrote:Name me one society in the history of mankind (the last 20 years or so excepted) that has ever recognized homosexual partnerships as being the equivalent (same thing) as traditional marriage?



The United States of America.  



EmeraldGhost wrote:Sure, there have always been homosexual partnerships to some degree or other in tolerant societies .... but it ain't the same thing as marriage.  Never have been, never will be.


It is now.


_________________
I approve this message.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

boards of FL wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
If you don't like those examples, then defer to my other examples of employee/spouse health insurance and what happens when someone dies in the absence of a will.

Health insurance is up to the employer & health insurance company.   There was no law saying homosexual partners couldn't be included on one's health insurance.



Employers will often offer health insurance plans for the legal spouse of the employee.  In a world of gay marriage bans, that obviously discriminates against people living in long-term, monogamous gay marriages.

There's no law saying they have to do that.

EmeraldGhost wrote:As to wills ... if I wanted my worldly goods to go to someone else other than my family members upon my death ... I should have written a will.



But if you don't have a will and you pass away, your belongings will naturally default to your spouse in the event that you are married.  In a world of gay marriage bans, this policy discriminates against gay people living in long term, monogamous relationships.

Spouse & surviving children ... it really depends on the State you are in. how it goes without a will.

There's no discrimination ... because the two relationships are not the same, at all.




EmeraldGhost wrote:In at least one State I've lived in .... in the absence of a will .... by law 50% goes to surviving spouse & 50% split among the children of the deceases.  If you want to cut your spouse or any of your children out of that you write a will!   It's not that hard.  You can download one of the internet, get a couple competent witnesses, have it notarized, and you're good to go.



Great.  But if you don't have a will...

You're exhibiting an uncanny ability of missing the point here.

Then get a will!

I get the point. Heard it all before. It's you who isn't listening.





EmeraldGhost wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
But aside from that, how is allowing gay people to legally marry the same thing as "turning our whole society upside down"?

Because it's not "marriage."  Not from an evolutionary & historical cultural standpoint.  From a bio-evolutionary & historical/cultural standpoint marriage is"  the union, intended for life, of one man & one or more women, and that usually has the result of creating & raising children.   "Marriage" (as I defined above) is what creates human societies ... it's what bonds previously unrelated family groups together causing them to become,well, related.   This goes way back into pre-history.  Homosexual partnerships just do not do that & never have.  (I could go more into that .... but I'll leave it stand for a moment to let it sink in)



So now you're going to play the semantics game.  That doesn't work.  If we apply the logic of your "bio-evolutionary" argument, sterile people would be excluded from marriage.  So people with bad genetics, old people, etc, they would all be excluded from marriage on that basis.  

There is no argument to be made from a historical basis.   Today, we need to have good reasons backing our policy - as opposed to "well, that's the way it has always been done".  We used to stone adulterous women to death, own slaves, cut off people's hands for theft, etc.   From a historical perspective, these are all great things!  Right?


No semantics here ... I'm citing science and history.

Playing the semantics game is calling homosexual partnerships marriage.




EmeraldGhost wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
One more time for PkrBum.  I'm not talking about government benefits.

The government bennies taxpayers in this country currently provide to the "marriage" relationship were originally created in recognition of the fact women (wives) historically, in most cases, did not have the opportunity to have the same lifetime earnings & career opportunities as men (husbands.)   Now perhaps that idea is a bit outdated & we need to revisit what government benefits are to be provided to the official marriage relationship ... doesn't mean we need to create a whole new definition of marriage that flies in the face of thousands upon thousands of years of evolution & human culture.



No one is talking about government "bennies".  You're not responding to a post about government "bennies", so you're basically talking to yourself here.  If you want to discuss government "bennies" and marriage, that would be a broad knock against marriage in general, gay or straight.  But that isn't the discussion at hand here.  We're discussing discrimination.  Have you anything to say in response to the discussion at hand?



I'm talking about government bennies. You don't get to set the terms of the conversation.




EmeraldGhost wrote:Name me one society in the history of mankind (the last 20 years or so excepted) that has ever recognized homosexual partnerships as being the equivalent (same thing) as traditional marriage?



The United States of America.  

I said: "the last 20 years or so excepted" .... reading comprehension, try it


EmeraldGhost wrote:Sure, there have always been homosexual partnerships to some degree or other in tolerant societies .... but it ain't the same thing as marriage.  Never have been, never will be.


It is now.



No it's not ... not in the minds of most people. Government can decree it .... that don't make it so. Homosexual partnerships are not ... and will never be, can never be, qualitatively the same thing as the human marriage relationship (as I defined in a previous post)

In any case, it's not really a big deal to me, I didn't start this thread ... just throwing my 2 cents in. SCOTUS decreed it, I disagree with it (as do the majority of Americans, but for different reasons than I) .... but I also recognize the world's not gonna fall apart because of it. It really affects a very small percentage of people. It's just more silliness in a country increasingly infected by silliness.

Sal

Sal

Homos aren't real people, #blacklivesmatter is playing the knockout game extreme, a YOOOOGE Mexican wall, and ISIS is coming to kill us all.

GOP 2016!!

Makes me a little nostalgic for the ebola panic.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Salinsky wrote:Homos aren't real people, #blacklivesmatter is playing the knockout game extreme, a YOOOOGE Mexican wall, and ISIS is coming to kill us all.

GOP 2016!!

Makes me a little nostalgic for the ebola panic.

Okay kids, are we all frightened yet? Care to look under your beds in the dark?

boards of FL

boards of FL

EmeraldGhost wrote:
There's no law saying they have to do that.



Correct.  No one said there was.



EmeraldGhost wrote:Spouse & surviving children ... it really depends on the State you are in. how it goes without a will.

There's no discrimination ... because the two relationships are not the same, at all.



The relationships are the same.  We're talking about romantically involved relationships between people.  And the point here is that convenience is (or, was) afforded to heterosexual couples but not gay couples; hence, discrimination.




EmeraldGhost wrote:Then get a will!

I get the point.   Heard it all before.  It's you who isn't listening.



Or get married.  Marriage offers the convenience of not requiring a will.  

I think I should point out here that the burden of proof does not rest with me to prove that gay marriage should be legal.  The burden of proof rests with you to prove or explain why gay marriage should be illegal.  



EmeraldGhost wrote:
No semantics here ... I'm citing science and history.

Playing the semantics game is calling homosexual partnerships marriage.




You are absolutely playing semantics.   You're claiming that gay marriage is "turning our whole society upside down" on the basis that your definition of the term 'marriage' does not allow for gay people to become married.  That really is your argument here.   And I addressed your "bio-evolutionary" (your term) argument already.  Using your line of "bio-evolutionary" reasoning, we can exclude everyone who isn't capable of breeding from marriage.  Do you have a response there or are you going to simply continue repeating the idea that you have put forth a good argument?  In reality, you put forth an argument.  I showed you why your argument doesn't really work.  Any response there?




EmeraldGhost wrote:
I'm talking about government bennies.  You don't get to set the terms of the conversation.



Fair enough.  No one else is, so I'll leave you to discuss that one with yourself.




 
EmeraldGhost wrote:I said: "the last 20 years or so excepted" .... reading comprehension, try it



You will have to forgive me.  Your comment was so ambiguous and convoluted that I couldn't tell what you were talking about.  In fact, I still can't.  You asked me to name any society that has ever recognized gay marriage in the history of mankind.  Oh, but only the last 20 years excepted.   Or, did you mean accepted?  Is "now" considered to be within the last 20 years?   What about several months ago?  Would that point in time fall under the category of "the last 20 years or so"?  

All I can say is that the US recognizes gay marriage.  But even if it didn't, your argument still wouldn't hold water.

Show me any society that has ever sent people to Mars.   Show me any society that has ever had a robust economy driven purely by renewable energy.  Show me any society that is conceivable better than what we have today, but that also has existed at some point in the past.  Show me any society...   This isn't a real argument.  

Here again, can you give me any valid, logically consistent reason as to why gay marriage should be illegal?  Just one.  That's it.

And lastly, if you're going to question someone's reading comprehension, you should probably first make sure that the underling text in question is spelled correctly.  Also, you should probably learn to use the quote feature as well.  Trust me when I say that you yourself should first learn to crawl before critiquing someone else's ability to run.



EmeraldGhost wrote:No it's not ... not in the minds of most people.   Government can decree it .... that don't make it so.   Homosexual partnerships are not ... and will never be, can never be, qualitatively the same thing as the human marriage relationship (as I defined in a previous post)


Actually, it is.  You are objectively wrong here.  The united states now recognizes gay marriage.  Sure, we're currently dealing with a small pocket of ignorance in Kentucky, but that will assuredly be dealt with and society will advance.  

Humanity will continue to improve as religion's influence continues to wane.  This has been the case for some time now and will continue to be the case into perpetuity.



EmeraldGhost wrote:In any case, it's not really a big deal to me, I didn't start this thread ... just throwing my 2 cents in.   SCOTUS decreed it, I disagree with it (as do the majority of Americans, but for different reasons than I) ....



Here again, you are objectively wrong.   You are among the minority of ignorant, religious people.

That actually raises a question. The ignorant religious people have the alibi of having been indoctrinated into religion. That is why they are ignorant in this regard. But you're claiming to be an atheist. So...what is your excuse?


Despite recent Supreme Court ruling, the religious continue to oppress the LGBT community under "god's authority" - Page 3 Jbjslwzc8eatod6wmovh_a


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Why am I... as someone that chooses not to marry again... discriminated against and forced to pay higher taxes?

Frickin nazis.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:Why am I... as someone that chooses not to marry again... discriminated against and forced to pay higher taxes?

Frickin nazis.

I dunno ...

... TYRANNY!!, I guess.

BTW, the entire female gender called to say, "Thank you.".

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Why am I... as someone that chooses not to marry again...



I suspect that middle-aged/old-aged men who stopped mentally developing in high school aren't exactly a hot commodity in the singles market.

Choice isn't the reason you're single any more than choice is the reason why I'm not the current reigning NFL MVP.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Lame... I have no trouble with the ladies... it's harder to stay unattached. I may change my mind someday.

Nice dodge tho comrade.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 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