| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| People without faces | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 15 2010, 03:14 PM (690 Views) | |
| jon-nyc | Nov 16 2010, 02:41 PM Post #26 |
|
Cheers
|
Of course its recognized in all states. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Nov 16 2010, 03:46 PM Post #27 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Full Faith and Credit Clause. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Nov 16 2010, 04:39 PM Post #28 |
|
Finally
|
Why limit it to two? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Nov 16 2010, 04:53 PM Post #29 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Those spewing hate and intolerance all start to sound like Reverend Phelps. Just two sides of the same coin. 'You HAVE to think the way I do because I am RIGHT!'. 'You HAVE to believe what I believe because GOD HATES FAGS!'. All same. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Nov 16 2010, 08:08 PM Post #30 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Jon - That's mostly true - though Full Faith and Credit doesn't have to override a state's "public policy." In other words - no - if another state deemed what my religion (and State) calls marriage, they wouldn't have to acknowledge it. In the end, it's still a State's issue - like it or not. It's not federally protected, it's legislated state by state, and is acknowledged by each other state under Full Faith and Credit as long as it isn't in opposition to that state's public policy, which my marriage could be at any point. If a State deemed Christian marriage to be illegal (or islamic marriage, or Mormom marriage), then that state wouldn't have to accept my marriage under Full Faith and Credit.
I wasn't trying to make a point that my marriage isn't acknowledged in some state - it is. My point was that the acknowledgement of a state's laws and judgements, even under Full Faith and Credit comes down to a very broad definition of "public policy." In other words - it's a State level issue. I see intelligent arguments on both sides of the issue - with no hate or intolerance. IT's views for one, have on more than one occasion given me pause to think. They're valid concerns and thoughts. But as I've said on many occasions, I'm fairly Libertarian when it comes to this, and my Church's definition of a marriage is what means the most to me personally - that's where the meaning is for me, not in the State's definition. So, I wouldn't have a problem with civil union, or state recognition of these partnerships. If anything, I'd think people would want to promote monogamous relationships, as it's a benefit to society as a whole. |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| Big John | Nov 16 2010, 08:25 PM Post #31 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
And Rosa Parks should have stayed in the back of the bus. And John Tyner should have shut up and allowed himself to be irradiated or groped. The irony to me is that people would rather encourage dishonesty and discourage truth. In the military, it's an Achilles Heel to have a policy that encourages deception. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Nov 16 2010, 08:36 PM Post #32 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Once we're equal they no longer get to be superior. |
![]() |
|
| Big John | Nov 16 2010, 09:10 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
I personally think that the whole gay label is outdated. The most promiscuous predatory homosexuals I know are either straight or married to women. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Nov 16 2010, 09:53 PM Post #34 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Arbitrary, I know. Funny, how you have to draw the line somewhere. If you are going to have a line, that is. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Nov 17 2010, 03:50 AM Post #35 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
That is exactly what I'm talking about. There are intelligent arguments on both sides but no one can hear them due to the screaming from the fringe peanut galleries on both sides. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Nov 17 2010, 05:14 AM Post #36 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
Oh yeah. That's it. You caught our whole plan. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Nov 17 2010, 05:29 AM Post #37 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
1. You can believe in that monogamous relationship is a benefit to society -- of course, "monogamous gay marriage" is a form of "monogamous relationship." 2. Being a "Libertarian" does not mean you have to endorse or tolerate discrimination by the state. A libertarian may want state to stay out of people's private lives, that does not mean a libertarian have to stand for the state denying rights to one group that the other groups enjoy. While there is a solid case for a Libertarian to want the state out of the marriage business entirely[1], there is no Libertarian case in support of the state recognizing marriages of one group but not the other. 3. You value your church's definition of marriage -- apply that to yourself, fine, but don't use that to deny others from valuing their preferred definition of marriage and apply that to themselves. No church, religion, or system of belief has a monopoly on the term or the concept of "marriage." 4. There is no intelligent argument or valid concern or thought on the side that opposes the state recognizing gay marriage in a reality where the state already recognizes heterosexual marriage. Arguments, concerns and thoughts based on feelings and emotions ("I don't feel comfortable about it") and religion ("my church says so") are neither intelligent nor valid as bases of public policies. 5. An act to institutionalize discrimination is an act of intolerance. Hate is merely a more intense form of intolerance. [1] I personally subscribe to this view. |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Nov 17 2010, 06:37 AM Post #38 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Spot on. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Nov 17 2010, 06:39 AM Post #39 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Kenny walks into a hotel, shoves Jesus out of the way and grabs the nails out his hand, hands them to the inn-keeper and says, "Put me up for the night!" |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Nov 17 2010, 08:22 AM Post #40 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Ax: I think you've completely missed the meaning of my post... 1) I know monogamy can apply to homosexuals, and that's precisely what I was saying. It's a benefit to society to promote monogamy, which is why i'm surprised more people aren't in favor of, or tolerant of, same-sex civil union. 2)Yes - agree - which is why I made the statement I did in favor of civil union being recognized by the state. It's because of my Libertarian leanings (rather than emotional or religious beliefs) that I'm in favor of this. My use of the word "Libertarian" was not to make an argument against, but an argument for. As for there being no intelligent arguments based on emotion and feelings or beliefs - does that apply to the other side as well, or only the one side you see as being intolerant? IT for one has previously had very articulate arguments not based on belief or emotion as to why the current definition of marriage behooves society, are his arguments valid? |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Nov 17 2010, 09:03 AM Post #41 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Nonsense. People's religious or other moral viewpoints are perfectly valid base points for implementation of public policy, even within a pluralistic society. This is nothing more than a wordier version of the argument that "you can't legislate morality," which is absurd, since all law is nothing more than legislated morality. It may be true that those religious/moral views are wrong -even completely wrong - and may be discriminatory - but that is actually a separate issue. In the public forum of ideas, a person's religious and moral underpinnings are the proper, and in fact, unavoidable, basis for public policy, whether the outcome is good and right, or misguided and needing correction. But if it needs correction, that correction will only come through the changing of the people's underlying religious/moral interpretations and understandings - not by trying to claim that it's wrong to use those core beliefs in the public forum, while the opposing side actually does the same thing, just from a different perspective. Public policy is nothing but an aggregate expression of the morality of the people at large. I'm sure everyone here knows my stance on same-sex marriage and related equality issues. I'm just saying this is a flawed argument to use while trying to get to an end that I ultimately agree with. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 17 2010, 01:09 PM Post #42 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
+1 |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Nov 17 2010, 01:15 PM Post #43 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Doesn't say much for the people you admit to know. |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Nov 17 2010, 01:28 PM Post #44 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Ren: I wondered at that statement as well - but in the end just decided I didn't understand it, and let it go. |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
|
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2













12:51 AM Jul 11