Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

[Tiponya]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Sacred - concerned with religion or religious purposes

I can go and apply for a marriage license and marry at the court house. A church or any other religious institution had nothing to do with it. Marriage is only sacred if that is what you personally believe. This is about a law. There is a very good reason why there is a separation of church and state.
And Mhurron is 100% correct. If a state decided that interracial marriages destroyed the "sanctity" of marriage, and most of the state agreed with it and voted to outlaw it, should we just go with that because the majority voted for it?
So, rights for some and not for others? I guess that's OK, as long as you are not the others...

[Cotners]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Your moral values and the moral values of others, even if they are the majority, do not trump the rights of others.

How does it intrude on you?

But you can intrude upon theirs if they're gay. You can say whether or not they can have a legally recognized marriage, simply because they're gay.

You did not read what I wrote. Unalienable rights also pertain to ideals, values and morals.

Just to make things clear, I am not a bigote or a homophobe. I actually do have gay friends. I do not look down on them in anyway. However, when someone busts in and tries to change something that I believe in I will fight to preserve my beliefs.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Because it is overly intrusive. There has been no right or wrong established in this case. I have a right to my ideals so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others, as does everyone else. The argument here is who is going to lose the overlapping ground, and for that both sides will continue to propagate their way of living.

And groups - despite their claims for wanting things to be equal - happily vie for that overlapping space to prove their way of thinking/living is superior to that of the other. More often than not, this is to further another agenda.

Just look at our two party system, they're always squabbling for that overlapping space. A democrat and a republican could both dream up their own bills with similar ideas all on their own accord. These bills could be filled with great progressive ideas that would benefit all Americans, but because one bill is made up by a democrat and the other by a republican, both sides will vote the other down.

Some people don't care about progress, just that their team gets a win.

And its the same for Pro-Choice and Pro-Lifers. Despite the fact they actually do have a common goal they could work toward, they're more concerned about their place in history and who wins. Both sides have good methods and teachings that can reduce and eliminate unwanted pregnancy and transmission of disease, great methods, even. But they don't work together on those thigns, largely because it would prevent them from furthering other goals.

Same thing here. People just think there's some fucking score card involved on these matters.

But you can intrude upon theirs if they're gay. You can say whether or not they can have a legally recognized marriage, simply because they're gay.

And where did I say that? All you're proving to me is that you're an excellent selective reader. I just love how you read things in that haven't been said. Now go sit in a corner while I find someone that can teach you how to read. Should I grab a French tutor as well?

[Tiponya]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

You did not read what I wrote. Unalienable rights also pertain to ideals, values and morals.

Just to make things clear, I am not a bigote or a homophobe. I actually do have gay friends. I do not look down on them in anyway. However, when someone busts in and tries to change something that I believe in I will fight to preserve my beliefs.

So by making gay marriage legal this completely destroys your ideas of marriage?
So we must force personal beliefs on everyone else?

Bigot- a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

[Cotners]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Bigot- a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

By this defintion, everyone is a bigot.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

By this defintion, everyone is a bigot.

No, you're just hiding it real well. But you totally are one. The internet kids have you figured out.

[Tiponya]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Damn Mr.Webster and his definitions.

[Yellow Mage]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

And where did I say that? All you're proving to me is that you're an excellent selective reader. I just love how you read things in that haven't been said. Now go sit in a corner while I find someone that can teach you how to read. Should I grab a French tutor as well?

Mhurron has every right, by the way, to ignore your attempts to derail this in to unrelated political squabbles.

Because it is overly intrusive. There has been no right or wrong established in this case. I have a right to my ideals so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others, as does everyone else.

And it's totally not intrusive nor right-infringing to say that one group of law-abiding people are not allowed to do something, while another group of law-abiding people are. That's totally not bigotry, either.

Honestly, you two seem to be so in love with each other's points. Why don't you two just marry?

[Cotners]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

And it's totally not intrusive nor right-infringing to say that one group of law-abiding people are not allowed to do something, while another group of law-abiding people are. That's totally not bigotry, either.

That's exactly what I just said. Two groups that have conflicting ideals both have the right to maintain their ideals, but where is the line drawn? Who looses ground? Who really has the right to infringe upon another groups rights? I am not saying that either group does, but that is the ongoing arguement.

And according to the previoulsy stated definition, everyone that is unwilling to see both sides of the fence is a bigot, so yeah, we're all bigots. Give it a rest already. This discussion is becoming infintile.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Mhurron has every right, by the way, to ignore your attempts to derail this in to unrelated political squabbles.

He's within his rights to do as he pleases, he's always above correction anyway. He has his pedestal and he looks down on all of us from it.

Those issues are extremely relevant, though, as they feature groups that refuse to compromise They are polarizing, divisive issues that people can't agree on and likely never will. We can only have two sides and the other side is always wrong, ignorant and a bigot if they don't agree with us? That's what they'd like to sell me.

If that's the game you wish to participate in, you're welcome to that shallow world view where its easy to find a bad guy, but to me things just aren't so black and white. There is always a larger agenda going on with either side that doesn't exactly stop with the simple ideals they project to the masses.

Even a simple ideal can be taken and corrupted when someone has enough power. It can become a religion instead of just an ideal.

The real irony of this thread is the witch hunt the majority seems to wish to have so they can feel like tolerant people. Maybe you all need to go check out what tolerance is, because this thread is far from a shining example.

[Icemage]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

The amount of spelling mistakes in this thread makes me sad.

---

Off the cuff, I find the cries of "Well, my rights are obviously more important than someone else's rights" to be a delicious exercise in fallacy.

No one is taking away your right to defend your opinions, but if you're not gay and living in California, you have absolutely none of your "rights" at jeopardy, regardless of what happens in this particular decision. Don't use that argument if you don't fall into the above-mentioned criteria; it makes you look short-sighted and intolerant.


Icemage

[Yellow Mage]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

That's exactly what I just said.

And by the way, this discussion became "infantile" some long times ago.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

No one is taking away your right to defend your opinions, but if you're not gay and living in California, you have absolutely none of your "rights" at jeopardy, regardless of what happens in this particular decision. Don't use that argument if you don't fall into the above-mentioned criteria; it makes you look short-sighted and intolerant.

So you're saying I'm entitled to my opinion on the matter, but only if I'm gay in California?

Other 49 states and all other gay people are excluded. No gay people from other countries and absolutely no straight people can comment now.

Shit, this is going to kill the thread.

In other news: The futility of political topics.

[Mhurron]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

And where did I say that?

Right where you argued in favor of the majority imposing their view of right on everyone. Yes you attempted a backtrack when you said you thought the government has no place dictating how others live their lives, except you were arguing the opposite yesterday.

[Yellow Mage]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

There is always a larger agenda going on with either side that doesn't exactly stop with the simple ideals they project to the masses.

The real irony of this thread is the witch hunt the majority seems to wish to have so they can feel like tolerant people. Maybe you all need to go check out what tolerance is, because this thread is far from a shining example.

Anybody else remember the "Ku Sux Klan" episode of Reno 911!?