Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls

Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls (Page 16)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2012, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The party of tolerance, equal rights, and equality ladies and gentlemen.
prove me wrong... please!.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2012, 07:07 PM
 
Snow-i, I do think that making claims that Jesus and God don't exist is not intolerance, it is academic rejection.

Intolerance is when you espouse something that not only puts somebody on the defensive, but it threatens them or somehow interferes with their rights to exist and have the same sort of life as anybody else. I don't think atheists are demanding that we shut down churches or that people that want to believe in that stuff shouldn't be allowed to.

Besides, one could flip your argument the other way and claim that religious people that challenge atheists are intolerant.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2012, 09:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Snow-i, I do think that making claims that Jesus and God don't exist is not intolerance, it is academic rejection.

Intolerance is when you espouse something that not only puts somebody on the defensive, but it threatens them or somehow interferes with their rights to exist and have the same sort of life as anybody else. I don't think atheists are demanding that we shut down churches or that people that want to believe in that stuff shouldn't be allowed to.

Besides, one could flip your argument the other way and claim that religious people that challenge atheists are intolerant.
The accusation which started all of this was that it's "sad" a religious people have a view on life based on "wishful thinking".

We can debate the semantics of whether this is intolerance. I feel there's less debate to be had about whether it qualifies an academic rejection.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2012, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

The accusation which started all of this was that it's "sad" a religious people have a view on life based on "wishful thinking".
We can debate the semantics of whether this is intolerance. I feel there's less debate to be had about whether it qualifies an academic rejection.
This does get us into semantics so I won't belabor this if this would be going down an irritating path for you (I know it is annoying when people pick apart words this way), but I would say that this is more being disrespectful to your viewpoint than intolerant. The word "intolerant" conjures up a whole layer of other stuff to me, if you know what I mean...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2012, 10:41 PM
 
Actually, I love semantic discussions.

However, I don't really disagree with you, so that won't be a fun discussion. "Disrespectful" was a term I entertained using myself.

To the point however, when someone is being disrespected, that's not really the time to quibble over semantics with them. I'd say the focus belongs on the person being disrespectful.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2012, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Actually, I love semantic discussions.
However, I don't really disagree with you, so that won't be a fun discussion. "Disrespectful" was a term I entertained using myself.
To the point however, when someone is being disrespected, that's not really the time to quibble over semantics with them. I'd say the focus belongs on the person being disrespectful.
Well, so that Snow-i doesn't feel put off at my quibbling with him, to him I say "I love you". I love you Snow-i, I want to be your Tintin.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2012, 12:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Yet again, Athens shows his true nature.
My true nature?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2012, 07:35 PM
 
Now this is not surprising. Coming soon to a town near you? The "Sister Wives" have file suit to overturn the bigamy law in Utah.
Three-person civil union sparks controversy in Brazil

A notary in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo has sparked controversy by accepting a civil union between three people.

Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be entitled to family rights.

She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement.

But the move has angered some religious groups, while one lawyer described it as "absurd and totally illegal".

The three individuals, who have declined to speak to the press, have lived in Rio de Janeiro together for three years and share bills and other expenses.

Ms Domingues says they have already opened a joint bank account, which is also not prohibited by any law.

According to Globo TV, the union was formalised three months ago, but only became public this week.

Nathaniel Santos Batista Junior, a jurist who helped draft the document, said the idea was to protect their rights in case of separation or death of a partner, Globo reports.

Ms Domingues, who is based in the Sao Paulo city of Tupa, said the move reflected the fact that the idea of a "family" had changed.

"We are only recognising what has always existed. We are not inventing anything."

"For better or worse, it doesn't matter, but what we considered a family before isn't necessarily what we would consider a family today."

But lawyer Regina Beatriz Tavares da Silva told the BBC it was "absurd and totally illegal", and "something completely unacceptable which goes against Brazilian values and morals".

Ms da Silva, who is president of the Commission for the Rights of the Family within the Institute of Lawyers, says the union will not be allowed to remain in place.

Some religious groups have also voiced criticism of the move.

While Ms Domingues has approved the union, it is not clear whether courts, service providers and private companies such as health insurance providers will accept the ruling.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2012, 07:42 PM
 
Said it before, will say it again.

Bigamy should be legal.


I'll also note I think it's often used to take advantage of women. I hate that, but personal civil liberties and freedom of religion take precedence.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2012, 08:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Said it before, will say it again.
Bigamy should be legal.
I'll also note I think it's often used to take advantage of women. I hate that, but personal civil liberties and freedom of religion take precedence.
I can't decide if it's inevitable. I think so, but not in the short or medium term, like gay marriage. I'd think the big holdup is people have enough trouble staying married with there are only two. I can't imagine legal and logistic ramifications once the amount of entities increases.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2012, 08:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Said it before, will say it again.
Bigamy should be legal.
I'll also note I think it's often used to take advantage of women. I hate that, but personal civil liberties and freedom of religion take precedence.

Hang on, personal civil liberties and religious freedom take precedence over not being allowed to take advantage of women? What about those women's civil liberties?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2012, 09:04 AM
 
It's ok, they weren't using them anyhow.



     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2012, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I can't decide if it's inevitable. I think so, but not in the short or medium term, like gay marriage. I'd think the big holdup is people have enough trouble staying married with there are only two. I can't imagine legal and logistic ramifications once the amount of entities increases.
Califorina is already working on that.

My Three Daddies: California Eyes Multiple Parenting Law


California, the battleground state for the arguments for and against same-sex marriage, is now considering an unconventional law that would allow children to be legally granted more than two parents.

The bill -- SB1476 -- would apply equally to men and women, and to homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Proposed by State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, it has passed the Senate and awaits an Assembly vote.

Leno cites the evolving American family, which includes surrogacy arrangements, same-sex marriages and reproductive techniques that involve multiple individuals.

"The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than 'Ozzie and Harriet' families today," Leno told the Sacramento Bee, which first reported the story.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2012, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Califorina is already working on that.
My Three Daddies: California Eyes Multiple Parenting Law
You paint this as something to do with polygamy (of course), but aren't the origins in dealing with step parents?

Also, hold on to your pants:
A number of other states, such as Maine and Pennsylvania, already have similar laws on the books allowing for judges to recognize more than two parents.
Looks like California is too late.


Amazing how one minute in google reveals your portrayal as pure BS.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2012, 02:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Hang on, personal civil liberties and religious freedom take precedence over not being allowed to take advantage of women? What about those women's civil liberties?
Which specific liberty do you think takes precedence?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2