WARNING! Christian rights been removed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
2,218
Likes
23
#81
2. I'm decrying the fact that laws denying the difference between the sexes also set the precedent for denying that sexual assault exists. That defense hasn't been tried yet afaik, but the precedent is there.
I don't see how that could become a precedent. Sexual assault is still sexual assault even between members of the same sex. It's not dependent on some legal difference between the sexes. But...

Point being absolute legal equality and fungibility is a denial of dimorphism. If the law has decided it can't recognize the difference in the most basic, fundamental function of that dimorphism, then it can't recognize it in the more trivial matters.
This is a good, hypothetical point that addresses our current legal confusion over gender and sexuality. I agree with you here, but I don't want to get into some technical legal argument with anyone over precisely what current law can or can't recognize, as if this is a simple black and white matter. Our law makers have the responsibility of writing these complex laws and they are just as confused as we are. People on both sides of this issue only agree on one thing: it's the people on the other side who are confused.
 
M

Maxx

Guest
#82
Those are both expected and, in so far as nature can be, intentional
Again, sex/gender isn't basic biology but actually quite advanced biology
Do genetic accidents happen? Yes. Intentional? On whose part? God's? Darwin's? If recognizing sex and gender required an advanced degree, none of us would be here, nor would most of the earth's vertebrate population. Sure, the cellular level details and mechanisms are complex and wonderful, but before Quantum theory, even before Newton, we still managed to cling to the earths surface without floating away.

You cited XO, often manifested as Turner's syndrome. A cousin had it. Like the rumpled fender in my example, not normal, Expected? Maybe in her case. Mom and Dad smoked and drank heavily, her siblings all had a variety of problems. Doesn't apply to any discussion of the difference between men and women.


As described, this doesn't actually meet the requirements in any jurisdiction I'm aware of for Common Law Spouse. Assuming it did, then this might be an appropriate judgement.
Appellate Judge Maxx: " Sorry counselor, in this and previous hypotheticals, your arguments for same sex marriage have removed sex, sex acts, gender and reproduction from consideration as criteria in determining "living as man and wife". You've even removed the "man and wife" part. All that remains is love. Love is an abstract concept not defined by law, and likely undefinable in legal terms. This court is loath to attempt such a definition. Fortunately, we don't have to. We can take the defendant at his word. His declaration of love contained no conditions, so we have unconditional love. Judgement in favor of the plaintiff upheld. "
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,604
Likes
4
#83
It's not just Love, it's also consent which is why many of those crimes would still be crimes because if someone says no and sex is forced, that is rape no matter what.

And laws applying to would be "Husbands/Wives", or even simply unmarried partners that are seriously in love with each other, you would have to prove the commitment of one person to their partner for common law spouse lawsuits, and a text message in and of itself would never be able to prove such commitment.
 

Traemo

Est. Contributor
Messages
947
Likes
10
#84
You cited XO, often manifested as Turner's syndrome.
If it occurs in humans, yes; however based on context (that you clearly didn't grasp) we weren't actually looking at human genotypes. Again, both listed genotypes are common, expected, and not considered abnormal when expressed in the corresponding individuals. That you missed this just lends more credence to my contention that you in fact don't have a strong grasp on anything past elementary school biology.

Appellate Judge Maxx: " Sorry counselor, in this and previous hypotheticals, your arguments for same sex marriage have removed sex, sex acts, gender and reproduction from consideration as criteria in determining "living as man and wife". You've even removed the "man and wife" part. All that remains is love. Love is an abstract concept not defined by law, and likely undefinable in legal terms. This court is loath to attempt such a definition. Fortunately, we don't have to. We can take the defendant at his word. His declaration of love contained no conditions, so we have unconditional love. Judgement in favor of the plaintiff upheld. "
Even if you argue for Common Law Marriage in this case, the case still fails to meet all required criteria. Additionally, in the 10 states and District that still recognize Common Law Marriage, "man and wife" does not appear in any of the relevant statutes. On redirect, the facts of the case do not bear out meeting ANY of the requirements.
Once again, you continue to make claims, assertions, and arguments without providing any factual or logical basis. Implicit nonsense remains nonsense; your repeated refusal to provide support for your drivel suggests you're well aware there is no support.

tldr; Maxx appears know only basic biology; the courts regard marriage as a legal contract, Maxx doesn't understand law; Maxx can't support his ridiculous claims and is aware of this fact
 
M

Maxx

Guest
#85
If it occurs in humans, yes; however based on context (that you clearly didn't grasp) we weren't actually looking at human genotypes. Again, both listed genotypes are common, expected, and not considered abnormal when expressed in the corresponding individuals. That you missed this just lends more credence to my contention that you in fact don't have a strong grasp on anything past elementary school biology.
What?!??

Even if you argue for Common Law Marriage in this case, the case still fails to meet all required criteria. Additionally, in the 10 states and District that still recognize Common Law Marriage, "man and wife" does not appear in any of the relevant statutes. On redirect, the facts of the case do not bear out meeting ANY of the requirements.
Once again, you continue to make claims, assertions, and arguments without providing any factual or logical basis. Implicit nonsense remains nonsense; your repeated refusal to provide support for your drivel suggests you're well aware there is no support.
Yep. Marriage IS a contract formalizing a mating ritual. It was never necessary to specify man and woman or husband and wife because everybody on the frikkin planet knew what it meant. Human species isn't specified either....

Edit: ICYMI, I've been taking some liberties in pointing out contradictions and paradoxes involved in removing sex and gender from the concept of marriage. I could talk legalese if I wanted to. It would be boring and would miss the point. It's not about what the law says now, but where the precedents could take us. The law isn't about kumbaya, and when you set a precedent you have no idea where it will go after that. Devious, self-serving and deceptive are at least as likely as comforting and inclusive if not more so. "gay rights! equality! inheritance! tax breaks! hospital visitation!" I remember all the arguments.

My life would be significantly less complicated right now, and my financial situation considerably improved if I married my widowed 90 year old mother. Go ahead and try to deny that I love her.... Yeah, I'm already married, so what? Is that any weirder than two guys getting married? I don't think we're even allowed to say 'weird' any more. Incest? Clearly she's not going to get pregnant. Truth be told, consummation might've happened already if I didn't sleep with one eye open while I was down there. Her mind is far enough gone and I look enough like my late father that she made moves a couple of times. Consent? In the eyes of the law she is still competent. We're working on that.


- - - Updated - - -

I don't see how that could become a precedent. Sexual assault is still sexual assault even between members of the same sex. It's not dependent on some legal difference between the sexes. But...
One more time... If sex is meaningless in the legal context, how can there be sexual assault? We're not at that point yet, but that's the logical endpoint of LGBT doctrine.

This is a good, hypothetical point that addresses our current legal confusion over gender and sexuality. I agree with you here, but I don't want to get into some technical legal argument with anyone over precisely what current law can or can't recognize, as if this is a simple black and white matter. Our law makers have the responsibility of writing these complex laws and they are just as confused as we are. People on both sides of this issue only agree on one thing: it's the people on the other side who are confused.
Well, yes. To bring it back around to the original topic....

I'm not confused. Are you?

Any confusion about male and female is manufactured. The Church of LGBT requires you to believe that gender is some vague poorly defined thing.

So it seems at the moment... Government is trending toward favoring one religion over another.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Messages
2,218
Likes
23
#86
Maxx said:
One more time... If sex is meaningless in the legal context, how can there be sexual assault? We're not at that point yet, but that's the logical endpoint of LGBT doctrine.
I'm trying to agree with you on some points but you don't make it easy. :)

Americans are obsessed with sex so, from a legal standpoint, it won't become meaningless in the foreseeable future. Sexual assault will always be linked to motivation, patterns of behavior, and certain body parts, regardless of the legal definitions of gender or sex. I don't see anything to worry about here.
Well, yes. To bring it back around to the original topic....
I'm not confused. Are you?

Any confusion about male and female is manufactured. The Church of LGBT requires you to believe that gender is some vague poorly defined thing.

So it seems at the moment... Government is trending toward favoring one religion over another.
Putting that kind of religious slant on it is only adding to the confusion. I'm sure the LGBT 'community' will claim its demands are based on constitutional rights and/or science rather than religion. There is no reason to believe these people are united by any kind of religious belief. There are people who object to those demands for religious reasons, but we are a secular nation and will eventually find a solution that the majority in congress will have decided was a fair and practical compromise. If that solution has too much of a religious odor to it, it won't survive a Supreme Court challenge. Again, I don't see anything to worry about here. It's just a distraction that isn't helping the discussion.

I share your concern over the definition of "gender". The real issue we have to decide, as I see it, is how much the legal distinction between male and female should be based on a person's anatomy and how much should be based on a person's feelings or beliefs. In the past it was 100% anatomy, but some people are now challenging that. Because of the political power behind this movement we are obligated to determine if this challenge has any merit.

And regarding same sex marriage: we really dropped the ball on that one. Such a significant change to the commonly accepted legal purpose of marriage immediately brings up questions: Should the government remain in the marriage business? ...and, if so, for what purpose? We never adequately answered those questions.
 

Traemo

Est. Contributor
Messages
947
Likes
10
#87
Marriage IS a contract formalizing a mating ritual.It was never necessary to specify man and woman or husband and wife because everybody on the frikkin planet knew what it meant.
If this is true, then we should exclude all women past menopause and anyone infertile from marriage, and ban the possession of any form of birth control to married persons. After all, if marriage is solely about reproduction, then all of this is just logical extension.

On the other hand, none of that matters if one accepts that marriage is and has been a formalization of a relationship that exists to grant explicit rights and privileges. It wasn't precisely common, but there are historical records showing the local equivalents of same sex marriage, so no "everybody" didn't treat your implicit restriction as true.
Human species isn't specified either....
Should have been pretty clear since humans lack any form of Z/W chromosomes - then again, recognizing this fact requires knowledge of biology, physiology, embryology beyond elementary school level. Something I've repeatedly pointed out, though you seem determined to deny this fact.
Edit: ICYMI, I've been taking some liberties in pointing out contradictions and paradoxes involved in removing sex and gender from the concept of marriage.
A few things here:
1) You're consistently conflating two completely separate concepts, without showing how they're inseparable
2) We've repeatedly requested that you make your argument for the aforementioned link
I could talk legalese if I wanted to. It would be boring and would miss the point.
No, I don't think you could present legal arguments for your positions. Regardless, it wouldn't be "missing the point" unless your legal arguments are irrelevant to the current conversation.
It's not about what the law says now, but where the precedents could take us. The law isn't about kumbaya, and when you set a precedent you have no idea where it will go after that. Devious, self-serving and deceptive are at least as likely as comforting and inclusive if not more so. "gay rights! equality! inheritance! tax breaks! hospital visitation!" I remember all the arguments.
As if there aren't numerous, documented instances of "traditional" marriages being used explicitly for underhanded, devious, deceptive, and/or fraudulent purposes.
My life would be significantly less complicated right now, and my financial situation considerably improved if I married my widowed 90 year old mother. Go ahead and try to deny that I love her.... Yeah, I'm already married, so what? Is that any weirder than two guys getting married? I don't think we're even allowed to say 'weird' any more. Incest? Clearly she's not going to get pregnant.
Well, then by your definition, the lack of any possible offspring should preclude this "marriage".
In the real world, existing statutes regarding bigamy and acceptable degrees of consanguinity prevent this from happening.
Truth be told, consummation might've happened already if I didn't sleep with one eye open while I was down there. Her mind is far enough gone and I look enough like my late father that she made moves a couple of times. Consent? In the eyes of the law she is still competent. We're working on that.
Clearly you're not consenting, so, that's de jure assault. And if you are, malum prohibitum applies, though I'd argue for malum in se.

One more time... If sex is meaningless in the legal context, how can there be sexual assault? We're not at that point yet, but that's the logical endpoint of LGBT doctrine.
Because once again, the legal definitions for crimes such as rape and sexual assault on consent and deprivation of agency. They do not, in fact, even mention penises or vaginas, nor require that one of each be present for the offenses to occur. The fact you're apparently incapable of separating gender from copulation, even conceptually, suggests that maybe the courts should consider your competence, as well.
I'm not confused. Are you?
You're only not confused because you clearly don't understand what's being discussed.
Any confusion about male and female is manufactured. The Church of LGBT requires you to believe that gender is some vague poorly defined thing.
Again, if male and female are so simple and straightforward to define, provide those definitions.
Let's go one further, if male and female are so easy, what are the appropriate gender assignments for individuals with a genotype of ZW and XXY?

Sexual assault will always be linked to motivation, patterns of behavior, and certain body parts, regardless of the legal definitions of gender or sex.
As motivation, yes, most such crimes are committed as an expression of power, not lust. That much is true; that the statutes reference penises or vaginas, not true.
I'm sure the LGBT 'community' will claim its demands are based on constitutional rights and/or science rather than religion. There is no reason to believe these people are united by any kind of religious belief.
True statement, demonstrably there are LGBT advocates from multiple different religious beliefs. And the demands are based on current science as applied to legal precedents regarding equality.

There are people who object to those demands for religious reasons, . . . [/quote] which are prima facie invalid in American jurisprudence
I share your concern over the definition of "gender". The real issue we have to decide, as I see it, is how much the legal distinction between male and female should be based on a person's anatomy and how much should be based on a person's feelings or beliefs. In the past it was 100% anatomy, but some people are now challenging that.
This is largely because science has shown that such classifications and distinctions are frequently incorrect. Further, no one has yet spoken to how to deal with borderline cases.
Because of the political power behind this movement we are obligated to determine if this challenge has any merit.
This is how change happens - your arguments against LGBT rights are the same arguments that were forwarded in support of Jim Crow and the like.
And regarding same sex marriage: we really dropped the ball on that one. Such a significant change to the commonly accepted legal purpose of marriage immediately brings up questions: Should the government remain in the marriage business? ...and, if so, for what purpose? We never adequately answered those questions.
Legally, marriage was a contract granting explicit and inalienable rights. That definition hasn't actually changed. If the Government doesn't monitor such contracts, who would?
 
Last edited:
M

Maxx

Guest
#88
Putting that kind of religious slant on it is only adding to the confusion. I'm sure the LGBT 'community' will claim its demands are based on constitutional rights and/or science rather than religion. There is no reason to believe these people are united by any kind of religious belief. There are people who object to those demands for religious reasons, but we are a secular nation and will eventually find a solution that the majority in congress will have decided was a fair and practical compromise. If that solution has too much of a religious odor to it, it won't survive a Supreme Court challenge. Again, I don't see anything to worry about here. It's just a distraction that isn't helping the discussion.
It's not a religion in the traditional sense, but if you look at the noise and demands being made in the form of codified doctrine regarding gender fluidity, 'attractions', etc. it sure walks and quacks like a duck. Anyone like me suggesting that perhaps their re-definitions don't fit reality is blasted as a heretic (Ok.. racist/bigot/homophobe). Not much different than atheists vs. Christians vs. Muslims vs. devotees of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Am I a distraction, or an observer asking you to look at your own behavior and beliefs objectively?

Edit: Something to think about - LGBT might do better to declare themselves a religion. Maybe with a re-incarnation twist to it. Something along the lines of "We are spirits put in flesh not of our choosing, and not always matching what we were the last time around, challenged to make the best of it. All trials and suffering offered to the greater glory of our Lord and Saviour Freddie Mercury". It's not gay if you were the other sex in a past life, nor is it really transgender if you go that way. First amendment, kids. Can't be challenged.


I share your concern over the definition of "gender". The real issue we have to decide, as I see it, is how much the legal distinction between male and female should be based on a person's anatomy and how much should be based on a person's feelings or beliefs. In the past it was 100% anatomy, but some people are now challenging that. Because of the political power behind this movement we are obligated to determine if this challenge has any merit.
I'll concede that people are challenging that.

mckayla-maroney-not-impressed-face.jpg

I remain unimpressed. People believe in the power of crystals and copper threads in their support socks too.

And regarding same sex marriage: we really dropped the ball on that one. Such a significant change to the commonly accepted legal purpose of marriage immediately brings up questions: Should the government remain in the marriage business? ...and, if so, for what purpose? We never adequately answered those questions.
There's an understatement. A lot of the arguments I heard were more about tax breaks and inheritance and hospital visitation. Trying to latch onto things that had nothing to do with marriage or the underlying function of mating. I'd actually have a good laugh if government did get out of the marriage business. It wouldn't change anything for men and women getting together for the 500 million year old reason, and it wouldn't change anything for Christians. Government would get a small windfall from taxes, but if they didn't tax that, they'd raise taxes on something else anyway. It would screw up a lot of LGBT fantasies though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,604
Likes
4
#89
I love how Maxx correlates loose definition of gender in terms of modern science and Psychology to equating that Sex/Gender are no longer relevant and Gender cant be defined; even though Sexual Crime laws are based on consent and so the 2 can never be correlated.

What I find Bizzare is how it has gotten to the point where you cant call some people He or She and they seem to think its "an act of violence", yet somehow "not a crime", if you use the wrong pronouns.

I'm supportive of the whole spectrum until you go so far into the deep end all it does is make things hard for the people trying to show that they aren't against the LGTBQ community because they complicated things once it got past he or she.

If a guy wants to be a girl or vice versa, I can support that and call them whatever they wanna be called, but this whole "call me they/them" or worse yet "I was meant to be a wolf" is beyond me.
 

tiny

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,814
Likes
84
#90
Edit: ICYMI, I've been taking some liberties in pointing out contradictions and paradoxes involved in removing sex and gender from the concept of marriage. I could talk legalese if I wanted to. It would be boring and would miss the point. It's not about what the law says now, but where the precedents could take us. The law isn't about kumbaya, and when you set a precedent you have no idea where it will go after that. Devious, self-serving and deceptive are at least as likely as comforting and inclusive if not more so. "gay rights! equality! inheritance! tax breaks! hospital visitation!" I remember all the arguments.
What contradictions and paradoxes? You haven't explained anything.

My life would be significantly less complicated right now, and my financial situation considerably improved if I married my widowed 90 year old mother. Go ahead and try to deny that I love her.... Yeah, I'm already married, so what? Is that any weirder than two guys getting married?
Yes.

One more time... If sex is meaningless in the legal context, how can there be sexual assault? We're not at that point yet, but that's the logical endpoint of LGBT doctrine.
Why would sex be "meaningless in the legal context"? You're not making any sense. :-/

Any confusion about male and female is manufactured. The Church of LGBT requires you to believe that gender is some vague poorly defined thing.
You're mixing up gay rights with transgender rights.

And what is the point of you labelling other people's gender/sex to avoid "confusion"? Why do you care? Homosexuality has always existed in human societies, and has been observed countless times in all sorts of other mammals. Gay marriage isn't something new and unheard of.

What the hell do I have to fear from gay marriage?! If anything, I think the tax relief afforded to couples, and the tendency of heterosexual couples to have children, and be a drain on the health and education services is something to worry about. Gay marriage isn't.

So it seems at the moment... Government is trending toward favoring one religion over another.
How could natural human emotions like "love" be considered a religion?!

You haven't explained why homosexual coupling should be treated any differently to heterosexual coupling. Where's the harm? Why use politics and outdated religious dogma to persecute homosexuality?
 

AnalogRTO

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,662
Likes
35
#91
It's not about what the law says now, but where the precedents could take us. The law isn't about kumbaya, and when you set a precedent you have no idea where it will go after that. Devious, self-serving and deceptive are at least as likely as comforting and inclusive if not more so.
Slippery slope argument here. Absolutely classic fallacy in terms of argumentation, and purely ridiculous in answering. Please immediately enroll in a critical thinking at your local community college. Oh wait, you don't want to go to one of those places where the liberals run so rampant...
There's an understatement. A lot of the arguments I heard were more about tax breaks and inheritance and hospital visitation. Trying to latch onto things that had nothing to do with marriage or the underlying function of mating.
Is your claim that marriage is directly related to the underlying function of mating? If so, there's a lot to discuss regarding who should and should not be allowed to marry...
 

Kalis

Est. Contributor
Messages
296
Likes
0
#92
Sigh...
Marriages either need to be strictly religious, or strictly secular. My spouse and I legally married (JP not minister) strictly for legal purposes. Is ours any less of a marriage since neither of us has any interest in procreation? We take active preventive measures to attempt to ensure such (all methods have a failure rate, regardless of what some people claim, read the info packet included with each method). Are we Married? I think so, and so does the law. Religion? Most say we are not.
As for transgender being “new” read up on your archaeology. There have been several tombs opened where the skeletal or mummified remains showed a gender not consistent with the funerary rites preformed. These were not burials/entombments that were botched or done incorrectly as a slight to the deceased. These were with respect and honor. These are just the ones preserved well enough for us to find and understand. How many are lost in history?
Rape: has nothing to do with sex or gender, legally. It has to do with force, coercion, deceit, or lack of clear consent or agency. Anyone who cannot understand that concept has my pity, and possibly minor contempt.
 

Traemo

Est. Contributor
Messages
947
Likes
10
#94
Mostly because I want to at least understand where he's coming from. Pretty sure I'm never going to agree with him, but that doesn't necessarily make him wrong.
 
Messages
2,218
Likes
23
#95
Traemo said:
As motivation, yes, most such crimes are committed as an expression of power, not lust. That much is true; that the statutes reference penises or vaginas, not true.
The point is, squeezing a woman's breast will be viewed differently from squeezing a woman's shoulder when prosecuting a sexual assault case. Exposing a knee is not the same as exposing a penis. Body parts do matter regardless of what might be in the statutes.
And [LGBT] demands are based on current science as applied to legal precedents regarding equality.
Equality is debated by philosophers and legal precedents are set by lawmakers and judges, not scientists. As far as politics is concerned science is just another tool politicians use to suit their purposes.
[Objections for religious reasons] ...which are prima facie invalid in American jurisprudence
In actual practice people bring their religious beliefs with them to the jury box and the ballot box, and that can't be prevented.
This is largely because science has shown that such classifications and distinctions are frequently incorrect. Further, no one has yet spoken to how to deal with borderline cases.
It would be wrong to claim it is "frequently incorrect" to say that males have penises and testes, and females have vaginas and wombs. There are always exceptions but those exceptions aren't as frequent as you seem to be implying here. How to deal with those exceptions is not a central issue in what we are talking about unless by "borderline cases" you are referring to transgenders, in which case you would have to explain what you mean.
This is how change happens - your arguments against LGBT rights are the same arguments that were forwarded in support of Jim Crow and the like.
People are always making dubious claims about their rights. Questioning those claims is in no way arguing against anyone's rights. I have never argued against LGBT rights.
Legally, marriage was a contract granting explicit and inalienable rights. That definition hasn't actually changed.
You are parsing words in an attempt to claim that the fundamental nature of marriage, as people understood it, wasn't changed when the SC struck down laws against gay marriage. If it's no big deal that gays can now get married then it's no big deal if we go back to recognizing only heterosexual marriages. But it is a big deal, isn't it? It's an important issue to many people because it affects the fundamental unit of American society, and it hasn't been thoroughly discussed beyond the technical issue of 'rights'. The real issues go much deeper than formal technicalities and imagined "inalienable rights". This is why I said we dropped the ball on this one.

One of the attitudes seems to be that, over time, people will simply accept this new concept of marriage and no longer see it as an issue. The reason I'm sceptical of this point of view is I believe many of the abolitionists felt the same way about racial issues after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Maxx said:
Am I a distraction, or an observer asking you to look at your own behavior and beliefs objectively?
My behavior is due to my instincts and beliefs, and my beliefs are all subjective. That is as objective as I can get. :rolleyes:

My opinion on any issue only counts for about 1/200,000,000th of those of eligible voters. I don't have a problem accepting that. What I don't like is the way we go about trying to reach a collective agreement. It doesn't seem to work. It might be just wishful thinking, but I believe we can do better.
 
M

Maxx

Guest
#96
My opinion on any issue only counts for about 1/200,000,000th of those of eligible voters. I don't have a problem accepting that. What I don't like is the way we go about trying to reach a collective agreement. It doesn't seem to work. It might be just wishful thinking, but I believe we can do better.
Well... we COULD vote the earth flat. I doubt the earth would take notice. We could maliciously change the definitions of things like "man" "woman" and "marriage" in order to force everyone to accept and buy into our personal fantasies, but what does that do but set that table for further flawed and paradoxical conclusions?

Voting, compromise and consensus are great for things that aren't physical realities.

- - - Updated - - -

Mostly because I want to at least understand where he's coming from. Pretty sure I'm never going to agree with him, but that doesn't necessarily make him wrong.
And I appreciate that. Where am I coming from? I am offended by bad faith redefinitions of words forcing me to accept and support someone else's alternate reality, as you would likely resent being forced to worship an invisible deity. That right there is the essence of what this thread is about.
 

AnalogRTO

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,662
Likes
35
#97
Well... we COULD vote the earth flat. I doubt the earth would take notice. We could maliciously change the definitions of things like "man" "woman" and "marriage" in order to force everyone to accept and buy into our personal fantasies, but what does that do but set that table for further flawed and paradoxical conclusions?

Voting, compromise and consensus are great for things that aren't physical realities.
Voting the Earth flat is a matter of going against scientific fact. "Marriage" does not have a scientific definition, so changing what you consider the definition of the word to be is a matter of looking at the definition of what the social contract entails. If I ask you to define what an 'electron' is, I am not going to get the same definition as to what you think 'music' is. "Music' can actually have a much more substantive physical reality than 'marriage'. Please, describe for us what 'marriage' is--size, shape, or other physical, measurable characteristics.

And I appreciate that. Where am I coming from? I am offended by bad faith redefinitions of words forcing me to accept and support someone else's alternate reality, as you would likely resent being forced to worship an invisible deity. That right there is the essence of what this thread is about.
So are you willing to accept the word of flat earth believers about the shape of our planet being a disc rather than a sphere? That's something you can physically measure and provide others with the experiments to verify for themselves as to which is the truth. Denying that words evolve over time is ridiculous. With that argument, I should be legally allowed to beat my wife; after all, the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal" and my wife isn't a man, and therefore is not my equal and undeserving of protection.

Or did the word 'man' evolve from the time When the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution were written?
 

tiny

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,814
Likes
84
#98
Well... we COULD vote the earth flat. I doubt the earth would take notice. We could maliciously change the definitions of things like "man" "woman" and "marriage" in order to force everyone to accept and buy into our personal fantasies, but what does that do but set that table for further flawed and paradoxical conclusions?

Voting, compromise and consensus are great for things that aren't physical realities.
The shape of the Earth is something that can be tested through empirical phenomena. Marriage is a social construct. And a gay man is still a man.

And I appreciate that. Where am I coming from? I am offended by bad faith redefinitions of words forcing me to accept and support someone else's alternate reality, as you would likely resent being forced to worship an invisible deity. That right there is the essence of what this thread is about.
How does the definition of a word affect your reality in any way?

How is gay marriage in "bad faith"?

Where are the "flawed and paradoxical conclusions"?!

- - - Updated - - -

Or did the word 'man' evolve from the time When the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution were written?
I think so... "Man" just means mankind (i.e. men, women, children, etc.).
 

Azie

Poofhoof Princess!
Est. Contributor
Messages
368
Likes
5
#99
And I appreciate that. Where am I coming from? I am offended by bad faith redefinitions of words forcing me to accept and support someone else's alternate reality, as you would likely resent being forced to worship an invisible deity. That right there is the essence of what this thread is about.
So Maxx, i got a question for you. Where in the new testament does Jesus actually say homosexuality is a sin? I mean after all, Jesus abolished the old church and the old rules. The thread is about christians losing their rights, but freedom of religion in the US does not mean that one religion has the right to define what freedoms other groups have. After all, everyone has the same rights, including the freedom to enter legal contracts with any consenting adult. After all, marriage is legally just a contract in the US, and not administered by the church, in fact, the church can lose their licence to preform legal marriages if the government so chooses.

It is the government the defines the definition marriage, and if you don't like the fact that everyone is now considered equal in the eyes of the law with this issue, then you have lost sight of what America stands for.

Edit: Fixing a grammar issue.
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,604
Likes
4
Maxx, you know what you do when you dont support certain rights given to everyone instead of just to a very select few for what your reasons are?

Just dont get involved in the ceremony and in that way you aren't supporting it, and for people that are in service industries, they have to adapt to serve all protected classes, otherwise they should not be in the Service Industry, and then they dont have to serve anybody they dont want to; if they go into a Service Industry they have to Serve anybody willing to pay for their Services otherwise its discrimination to deny them.

And you cant change laws just because you believe scientifically speaking that a Man or Woman is defined by the organs they were born with, and to go against that must mean that now Gender is irrelevant as the laws never stated that those crimes are only crimes when they meet certain gender criteria such as Man against Woman or Woman against Man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top