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 > Warning: This thread is pretty gay

Warning: This thread is pretty gay (Page 26)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 04:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
In this instance I don't care
What instance would cause you to care?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
it's a step forward to what all such partnerships should be, in the eyes of the government, civil unions.
It's semantics. A rose by another name.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What instance would cause you to care?
I was talking about other situations where the government does the right thing but for the wrong reason.

It's semantics. A rose by another name.
No, it's further separation of church and state and the further removal of governmental oversight. Both good things.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I was talking about other situations where the government does the right thing but for the wrong reason.
Ah, ok.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No, it's further separation of church and state and the further removal of governmental oversight. Both good things.
That's an interesting view. You consider marriage a religious institution first and foremost?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 05:11 PM
 
That's an interesting view. You consider marriage a religious institution first and foremost?
In the USA it has been, ever since colonists first arrived. Some of our Diest forefathers wouldn't get married because they felt it was an intrusion by the church on their personal lives, so they died as bachelors.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 05:39 PM
 
Blame it on Luther. BTW it was the state that intruded on marriage.
How Protestantism Redefined Marriage | Bethany Blankley
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2015, 06:21 PM
 
The answer to all of this is for the government to treat all "marriages" as voluntary contracts and use existing contract law as a guide.

In this way the government has no say so in the parameters of the marriage OR the divorce. These things would be agreed upon at the drawing up of the contract and enforced the same way as contracts are.

With contract law as a guide, marriage would require:

• All parties be human. Animals or inanimate objects cannot be party to contracts.
• All parties be adults. Children cannot be party to contracts without court approval.
• All parties be of sound mind. If you do not have the capacity to understand the contract, you cannot be party to a contract.
• There can be no coercion or deception. Contracts that are signed involuntarily, or under false pretenses are not valid.

Beyond these guidelines, the law should be silent on who can marry... or how many for that matter. If 5 men want to marry each other, there is no reason for there to be any legal barriers to that.

It really doesn't need to be any more complicated than this.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
In the USA it has been
Well that's a colossal caveat.


Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Blame it on Luther. BTW it was the state that intruded on marriage.
How Protestantism Redefined Marriage | Bethany Blankley
From the article:
It's important to trace the history of marriage within the Western Christian tradition


You guys are redefining marriage as a religious institution because you're picking isolated parts of history to date it from.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 02:47 PM
 
If you've been looking for schadenfreude, Alabama being one of the first southern states to get overturned has led to some serious salt by it's Chief Justice.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore says he will continue to recognize ban on same-sex marriage | AL.com
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has released a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley saying that he intends to continue to recognize the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and urging the governor to do so.

...

"Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority."

A refresher on this guy:
In March 1995, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Moore, claiming that the pre-session prayers and the Ten Commandments display were both unconstitutional. This original lawsuit was eventually dismissed for technical reasons, but Governor Fob James instructed state Attorney General Bill Pryor to file suit in Montgomery County in support of Moore. The case ended up before state Circuit Judge Charles Price, who in 1996 declared the prayers unconstitutional but initially allowed the Ten Commandments plaque to remain on the courtroom walls.

Immediately after the ruling, Moore held a press conference vowing to defy the ruling against pre-session prayers and affirming a religious intent in displaying the plaque. Critics responded by asking Price to reconsider his previous ruling, and the judge issued a new ruling requiring the Ten Commandments plaque to be removed in ten days. Moore appealed Price's decision and kept the plaque up; ten days later the Alabama Supreme Court issued a temporary stay against the ruling. The Court never ruled in the case, throwing it out for technical reasons in 1998.

In February 2002, as Alabama Chief Justice, Moore issued a controversial opinion that expressed his belief that the State should use its powers to punish "homosexual behavior". The case, D.H. vs. H.H., was a custody dispute where a lesbian was petitioning for custody of her children, alleging abuse by her ex-husband. A circuit court in Alabama had ruled in favor of the father, but the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals overturned that verdict 4-1, claiming that substantial evidence existed of abusive behavior by the father.[11]

The state Supreme Court overruled the appeals court because the appeals court ignored evidence disputing abusive behavior by the father; however, Moore issued a concurring opinion concluding that a parent's sexual orientation (in this case, homosexuality) should be a deciding factor in refusing custody:

A month after his election, Moore began making plans for a larger monument to the Ten Commandments, reasoning that the Alabama Supreme Court building required something grander than a wooden plaque. His final design involved a 5,280 pound (2400 kg) granite block, three feet wide by three feet deep by four feet tall, covered with quotes from the Declaration of Independence, the national anthem, and various founding fathers.[14] The crowning element would be two large carved tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments. High-grade granite from Vermont was ordered and shipped, and Moore found benefactors and a sculptor to complete the job.

...

Moore argued that he would not remove the monument, as doing so would violate his oath of office:

...

On August 22, 2003, two days after the deadline for the Ten Commandments monument's removal had passed, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) filed a complaint with the Alabama Court of the Judiciary (COJ), a panel of judges, lawyers and others appointed variously by judges, legal leaders, the governor and the lieutenant governor. The complaint effectively suspended Moore from the Chief Justice position pending a hearing by the COJ.[22]

...

The next day, the COJ issued a unanimous opinion ruling that "Chief Justice Moore has violated the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics as alleged by the JIC in its complaint." The COJ had several disciplinary options, including censure or suspension without pay, but because Moore's responses had indicated he would defy any similar court orders in the future, the COJ concluded that "under these circumstances, there is no penalty short of removal from office that would resolve this issue."[24] Moore was immediately removed from his post.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well that's a colossal caveat.
Well, we are talking about laws in US states...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2015, 12:43 PM
 
Alabama wants to be remembered in the history books, like it is for civil rights
Alabama woman arrested after trying to perform same-sex marriage | MSNBC
A woman was arrested Tuesday at the Autauga County Probate Office and charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct after attempting to marry a same-sex couple there. She had to pay a bond of $1,000.
After initially halting the issuance of marriage licenses this week, Autauga late Monday became the 14th county in Alabama to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses, according to Human Rights Campaign’s count. Diprizio, an ordained minister and mother of two, showed up Tuesday morning to make sure everything was going smoothly and to perform marriage ceremonies for any same-sex couple who wanted one.

But after telling Judge Booth that she would be marrying a young couple there, Diprizio said he exploded at her.

“I gave him the courtesy of letting him know that it was my intent to marry this couple because he is no longer doing that service, and that’s what set him off,” Diprizio said.

“He was livid,” 19-year-old Morgan Plunkett, who was at the probate office to marry her same-sex partner, told msnbc. “He started cussing her out, he was telling us that we needed to leave, and that he had already called the sheriff.”
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2015, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Well, we are talking about laws in US states...
Not when referencing the 'tradition' of marriage.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2015, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Not when referencing the 'tradition' of marriage.
As it stands here, it's a religious tradition with civil significance.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2015, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
As it stands here, it's a religious tradition with civil significance.
As it stands with the people who make the ridiculous historical claim, they've never made any sort of nuanced argument.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2015, 11:55 PM
 
*shrug* It doesn't require nuance, it isn't that complicated.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2015, 10:51 AM
 
ok man
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2015, 01:03 PM
 
This strikes me as extremely selective in what states it has results for, but still indicative of the dystopian future ahead.
The most surprising gay marriage poll we’ve seen in a while - The Washington Post


I think it's worth noting is Iowa has had gay marriage quite a while (one of the first to do so judicially?) and is still in a slight deficit
New Hampshire is probably the reddest northeast state
South Carolina is noteworthy, though. A majority find gay marriage opposition unacceptable.

Remember, this isn't gen pop, this is Republican voters.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2015, 01:56 PM
 
I think quite a few, if not most, people polled were thrown off by a double negative used in the question.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2015, 02:07 PM
 
Apart from the double-negative, the question itself is a little bizarre.

Is it acceptable someone holds an opinion?

Of course. WTF kind of question is this?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2015, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I think quite a few, if not most, people polled were thrown off by a double negative used in the question.
Good point. I had to edit the post because I ****ed it after realizing the phrasing.

Still, in most cases the split is fairly even, which is hopeful.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2015, 11:29 AM
 
Alabama making this all those who enjoy schadenfreude everything they hoped and dreamed
State Supreme Court Justice Warns He May Abolish Marriage Entirely If Same-Sex Weddings Are Allowed | ThinkProgress
Justice Murdock’s opinion is attached to a brief order from the state supreme court as a whole declining to offer further guidance to Alabama probate judges regarding whether they must comply with a federal court order holding that same-sex couples are entitled to the same marriage rights as straight couples. In a brief opinion concurring in that order, Murdock hints that, if this federal court order is permitted to stand, then his own court should strike down all marriages within the state of Alabama.
Coward.

Murdock suggests that, had the state legislature known that its decision to exclude gay couples from the right to marry was unconstitutional, it might have preferred not to permit anyone to be married in the state of Alabama. This potential preference for no marriages over equality matters, according to Justice Murdock, because of a prior state supreme court decision holding that, when part of a state law is struck down, the law may be declared “wholly void” if “the invalid portion is so important to the general plan and operation of the law in its entirety as reasonably to lead to the conclusion that it would not have been adopted if the legislature had perceived the invalidity of the part so held to be unconstitutional.”

Thus, according to Murdock, if gay couples and straight couples must enjoy the exact same marriage rights under the Constitution, the proper remedy might be to deny those rights to everyone, rather than extending them to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.
The logic is sound. I don't think straight couples will stand for it, though.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2015, 03:44 PM
 
Doctor refuses treatment of same-sex couple's baby - Fox 2 News Headlines
Last September when the expectant mothers first met Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville. She was recommended by their midwife.

...

The Contrerasas were told to make an appointment with Roi once Bay arrived. The baby was born at home and when she was six days old - they went in.

But instead of seeing Dr. Roi, another doctor greeted them.

"The first thing Dr. Karam said was 'I'll be your doctor, I'll be seeing you today because Dr. Roi decided this morning that she prayed on it and she won't be able to care for Bay," Jami said.
"As far as we know Bay doesn't have a sexual orientation yet so I'm not really sure what that matters," Jami said. "We're not your patient - she's your patient. And the fact is that your job is to keep babies healthy and you can't keep a baby healthy that has gay parents?"
As it turns out, Roi has free choice too - the American Medical Association says physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on sexual orientation, but doctors can refuse treatment if it's incompatible with their personal, religious or moral beliefs.

And here in Michigan - there are no laws that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families from discrimination.
A baby ain't a wedding cake. Shoulda lied, subego?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2015, 03:51 PM
 
Yes.

"Turns out my associate has less time available for new clients than he thought."
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2015, 03:55 PM
 
Here's a twist. What if the doctor did lie – they don't have any religious reasons?

Dun dun dunnnn
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2015, 04:00 PM
 
I do have to question this person's belief structure.

I can see how if you're deeply devout, you have a problem with a gay wedding cake.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. You're asking the baker to make a celebratory cake for sin.

This doctor is literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. This isn't celebrating the sins of the parents, and the baby hasn't sinned at all.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2015, 04:09 PM
 
She's says something about it interfering with her ability to form a proper relationship with them. The change-of-heart is the real headscratcher.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2015, 04:16 PM
 
Then at the least, this doctor needs to eat more shit if they want a pass.

"I wouldn't be able to do this as well as I should due to my beliefs... this fault rests entirely on me."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2015, 04:18 PM
 
The word "prayer" needs to be followed by how said prayer enlightened them to their own faults.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2015, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The word "prayer" needs to be followed by how said prayer enlightened them to their own faults.
This strikes me as more intrusive than non-discrimination. It's one thing to have beliefs. It's quite another to have to justify them. That seems like an unreasonable burden.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 03:19 PM
 
I'm (obtusely) making the point standard issue Christianity isn't going to bar them from performing their duty in the way it would bar them from making a cake to celebrate something explicitly prohibited by the religion.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 03:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm (obtusely) making the point standard issue Christianity isn't going to bar them from performing their duty in the way it would bar them from making a cake to celebrate something explicitly prohibited by the religion.
...and I'm returning that if we have freedom of religion, we're not in a place to judge whether their interpretation of Christianity holds up or not.

Because, let's be honest – you might back them into a corner about WWJD, but they wouldn't actually change their behavior because of it. Rationality and religion are incompatible.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 03:39 PM
 
I'm separating policy from whether I personally think the person is full of it, and needs to get over themselves.

Policy-wise, sure. You are correct.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm separating policy from whether I personally think the person is full of it, and needs to get over themselves.
Yeah, but this has been true from way before this point. There's no religious reason to oppose civil marriage for gays, discriminate against them in business, etc., etc.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Policy-wise, sure. You are correct.
Well yeah, I know you wouldn't really endorse that.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yeah, but this has been true from way before this point. There's no religious reason to oppose civil marriage for gays, discriminate against them in business, etc., etc.
Seriously? You want the litany of scripture and 2k years of commentary on the issue of same-sex relations? WWJD? As He is presented by the Gospels, I strongly doubt he would have presided over, or even endorsed, a marriage between two males. I don't believe he would openly condemn them, however, and would have taught tolerance and compassion for their situation.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Seriously? You want the litany of scripture and 2k years of commentary on the issue of same-sex relations?
The have no right to interfere in civil marriage. They don't believe in other things that are legal, too.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
WWJD? I don't believe he would openly condemn them, however, and would have taught tolerance and compassion for their situation.
Bingo. Saying you can't treat the child of a homo couple isn't tolerance nor compassion.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The have no right to interfere in civil marriage. They don't believe in other things that are legal, too.
There wasn't civil marriage when church law was established (especially not in that area of the world), it is, in their eyes, a divine sacrament. Which is why it's important to separate unions recognized by the state from marriage, which is recognized by the Church.

Bingo. Saying you can't treat the child of a homo couple isn't tolerance nor compassion.
Correct, and it flies in the face of Christ's teachings.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2015, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
There wasn't civil marriage when church law was established (especially not in that area of the world), it is, in their eyes, a divine sacrament.
Their view is misguided and incorrect.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2015, 01:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Their view is misguided and incorrect.
You have the right to believe that, but that's what marriage is in the eyes of the Church, which is why universal civil unions are really the only way to fly.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2015, 10:02 PM
 
A very interesting article on "First Things" It just happens to cover the topic of the last few posts.
Opposing Gay Marriage Is Rational, Not Religious | Leroy Huizenga | First Things
These claims are controverted, of course. It’s a common postmodern maneuver to claim that all appeals to the objectivity of nature and reason are merely masquerades instantiating culture by the will to power. We need to continue having that discussion. But for now, in simpler terms, consider this: Is “Thou shalt not kill” a truth of faith, or a truth of reason? Shall we repeal our laws forbidding murder because its prohibition is found in a religious text?

Of course not. And so when thoughtful religious people make arguments in the public square based on reason, they should not be discounted. For instance, responding to Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel’s remarks declaring Chik-fil-A restauranta non grata , Cardinal George suggested on his blog, “It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage.” He then made the following points:

Marriage existed before Church and state. Therefore, “Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.”

Marriage concerns the physical complementarity of the sexes. “The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women.”

Even though marriage precedes the state, the state has an interest in regulating marriage, which is a public institution, to the end of “assur[ing] stability in society and the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens.”
The Church is also interested in regulating marriage, “because Jesus raised the marital union to the level of symbolizing his own union with his Body.” For Catholics, at least, the harmony of reason and faith, of nature and grace, means that things that existed before Jesus Christ was ever conceived”water, bread, wine, marriage”can be raised to the level of a sacrament.

The Cardinal, then, claims that the State has a duty not to define marriage according to the passing fancies of the body politic at a given time but to protect marriage as a natural good preceding the State. The Church too has a double duty, as it is indebted not only to nature but also to revelation.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 12:58 AM
 
You would then have to prove that being gay is unnatural, which is bloody hard given there are so many other species where homosexuality occurs naturally.

Again, being gay isn't unnatural, what's unnatural is trying to apply punitive measures to those who are.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 01:18 PM
 
Gay is an identity politics word. Same sex attraction is a more accurate description. You think it would be around 33% instead of the 1.6% listed the recent CDC report.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf

We've already gone down the "other species..." path. We don't emulate lower species behavior because we have reason, intellect, and will.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 01:46 PM
 
If "reasoning" is "natural", it appears far less in nature than same sex attraction appears in humans.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 01:53 PM
 
Also, WRT the CDC study, self-identification is only one way to slice the sexuality pie.

Plenty of people who have had sex with someone of the same gender at some point in their lives identify as straight.

Tell me Chongo... dude has sex with a dude once, realizes it's not for him, and never does it again. Same sex attracted or not?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Also, WRT the CDC study, self-identification is only one way to slice the sexuality pie.

Plenty of people who have had sex with someone of the same gender at some point in their lives identify as straight.

Tell me Chongo... dude has sex with a dude once, realizes it's not for him, and never does it again. Same sex attracted or not?
Probably no, People do things they normally would not do when they are drunk and/or high.
Uh oh, that implies there is choice involved.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 03:55 PM
 
Well, here's the thing... I know many people where there's no amount of drunk, high, or prison which will get them to try it. I would hazard a guess you fall in this category.

These people would most certainly identify as straight.

Is it correct to put this person in the same group as the person who's actually had sex with someone of the same gender?



WRT the "choice" angle, "choice" probably lacks the necessary nuance, but I will state in no uncertain terms the notion sexuality is somehow genetically locked and not influenced by external stimuli, is not only wrong, it's a ridiculous position.

I'll go so far as to say anyone who actually believes it's purely a question of genetics is either has an agenda, or has never actually thought about it.

Or both.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, here's the thing... I know many people where there's no amount of drunk, high, or prison which will get them to try it. I would hazard a guess you fall in this category.

These people would most certainly identify as straight.
Back in 70's during the CB craze, I received one for my 8th grade graduation present. One night I was taking with my friend down the street. One of the people we were taking to broke in and told me to come out front. He used a loop antenna on his car to find my house. After a few minutes of idle chat, this guy starts to put the moves on me. I told him no. He said "you sound gay on the radio" He then asks "How do you know you won't like it if you don't try it?" I told because I won't. That went on for a few minutes before he gave up. In retrospct I could have called the cops on him because he was over 18 and I was 15. My friend was there to watch the whole exchange so I had a witness.


Where do the Anne Heches of the world fit in?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 05:37 PM
 
I'm going to assume the times you've been drunk and/or high, the knowing it's not for you part hasn't changed.

A person for whom it could change? I'd say that's a significantly different place on the sexuality spectrum... and this is just people who would consider the idea. Once you get to people who have actually done it?

We're not in Kansas anymore.

If all these people go in the "straight" category, then it's not surprising the straight category is higher than it is in other studies.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2015, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Doctor refuses treatment of same-sex couple's baby - Fox 2 News Headlines






A baby ain't a wedding cake. Shoulda lied, subego?

This doctor is violating his hippocratic oath, regardless of his views.

It ain't no cake is right, which is why doctors are required to make that oath.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2015, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You have the right to believe that
Legally speaking. It's not a 'belief,' it's a fact.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
that's what marriage is in the eyes of the Church
...which is irrelevant to law, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
which is why universal civil unions are really the only way to fly.
What's the legal problem with civil marriage? Are we gonna change what we call people in a civil union, too?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2015, 10:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Marriage existed before Church and state. Therefore, “Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.”
If marriage existed before the church and religious marriage is different from previous marriage, then the church did indeed change it's nature, ergo, what a load of shit.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2015, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This doctor is violating his hippocratic oath, regardless of his views.

It ain't no cake is right, which is why doctors are required to make that oath.
Hippocratic oath isn't legally binding, I believe. In the article it's noted what the Doctor did is legal under AMA guidelines.
     
 
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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,