Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavI guess we will agree to disagree on the point that we didn't agree on about the issue of disagreeing the point of it all 😄
Noone was talking about that, it is totally irrelevant to the point I made- which you contested.However can we now all get passed this point and get back to the real issue- whatever that is.
Go Steelers, how can you handle that truth 😄
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Noone was talking about that, it is totally irrelevant to the point I made- which you contested.However can we now all get passed this point and get back to the real issue- whatever that is.
No, because I do not see how your point alone, and the way you meant it, have anything to do with proselytizing of the fundamentalist Christian religion. BTW that is what this thread is about. So, when I read your point, I take it as a way of proselytizing of the fundamentalist Christian religion. I then have to undermine your argument to stay on topic.
😉 😂
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, because I do not see how your point alone, and the way you meant it, have anything to do with proselytizing of the fundamentalist Christian religion. BTW that is what this thread is about. So, when I read your point, I take it as a way of proselytizing of the fundamentalist Christian religion. I then have to undermine your argument to stay on topic.😉 😂
My point had nothing to do with Christianity, nor could it be construed as having anything to do with Christianity without you lying.
Originally posted by Bardock42
This is silly.
Certainly.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Especially you, Ordo. You said exactly the same thing Gav, Sym and I pointed out, it's an issue of freedom of choice FOR EVERYONE, but then you choose to make Gav appear as ignorant or childish, likely because he is a Catholic (and might very well be against gay marriage, I don't know). I think above all we should be fair, if the side that we are opposed to makes a valid statement, trying to deny it makes us but look silly.[edit] Though I do disagree with Gav that everyone is equal. Women and Men can't choose from the same set of people. Therefore women and men are unequal, when it comes to marriage.
I find it offensive that you think I'm attacking Gav because of his religion. I dont know his religion or his views on marriage. Frankly they are irrelevant to this discussion. There is also no personal animosity between myself and Gav, so I dont understand where you are coming from.
I've never disputed his statement as false, I've disputed his argument, which is based on said statement, as narrow and false.
Originally posted by Ordo
Certainly.I find it offensive that you think I'm attacking Gav because of his religion. I dont know his religion or his views on marriage. Frankly they are irrelevant to this discussion. There is also no personal animosity between myself and Gav, so I dont understand where you are coming from.
I've never disputed his statement as false, I've disputed his argument, which is based on said statement, as narrow and false.
Which argument would that be?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavHaving marriage solely defined as a union between a man and a woman in Federal and State law is a religious issue, there is no need to have this stipulation imposed into a state constitution other than to prevent gays from getting married by law. Even the term Defense of Marriage Act suggest that they are trying to protect the "purity" of the word marriage, what other possible reason would there to be change the federal law to included this? For nearly 200 years the currently federal standard was fine that each state must reconize the marriage in another state and when the term "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." sounds pretty religious to me.
My point had nothing to do with Christianity, nor could it be construed as having anything to do with Christianity without you lying.
Originally posted by Ordo
Certainly.I find it offensive that you think I'm attacking Gav because of his religion. I dont know his religion or his views on marriage. Frankly they are irrelevant to this discussion. There is also no personal animosity between myself and Gav, so I dont understand where you are coming from.
I've never disputed his statement as false, I've disputed his argument, which is based on said statement, as narrow and false.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Which argument would that be?
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Having marriage solely defined as a union between a man and a woman in Federal and State law is a religious issue, there is no need to have this stipulation imposed into a state constitution other than to prevent gays from getting married by law. Even the term Defense of Marriage Act suggest that they are trying to protect the "purity" of the word marriage, what other possible reason would there to be change the federal law to included this? For nearly 200 years the currently federal standard was fine that each state must reconize the marriage in another state and when the term "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." sounds pretty religious to me.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavFor you maybe, but that is not the same as saying the sky is blue or 2 + 2 = 4 which both of these do not have meaning behind them as do the Defense of Marriage Act. This does have meaning behind it and will cause emotions and many to draw a conclusion based on the statement alone. I have never heard of anyone taking the stance as you did which to me and what I've have seen from you is not your norm. You normally will look at the big picture and wider scale of an argument and not dwell on the micro point of something as far as I've seen from you, it sounded like you arguing what is the meaning of "is" is.
Nothing I said was about imposing anything or revising the laws or keeping them the same. It was just a statement of fact about the status quo- all I did was describe the current situation. It is identical to me saying, the sky is blue really...
Just my two cents.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
For you maybe, but that is not the same as saying the sky is blue or 2 + 2 = 4 which both of these do not have meaning behind them as do the Defense of Marriage Act. This does have meaning behind it and will cause emotions and many to draw a conclusion based on the statement alone. I have never heard of anyone taking the stance as you did which to me and what I've have seen from you is not your norm. You normally will look at the big picture and wider scale of an argument and not dwell on the micro point of something as far as I've seen from you, it sounded like you arguing what is the meaning of "is" is.Just my two cents.
I wouldn't usually go on and on about such a simple thing- but the fact is some people have chosen to layer what I said with ideas, interpretations and whatever else...thus rather than discuss gay marriage or equality etc they wanted to dispute the fact that currently, all men and women are equal before the law regarding marriage.
Can we just get over this thing now? Fact is noone is allowed to marry someone that someone else is not when it comes to marriage in individual states ergo- equal.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavWe will agree to disagee though this statement even though this is augmentative. I was discussing equality in the bigger scope, how can you argue 2 == 2, and even then your example is not even that defined and absolute. By the letter of the law you are correct, down to the word but there is also the intent of the law as well and is part of the reason that we have jury is to understand and judge also based on the intent of the law. I could say Jesus died on the a cross, this is factual but also brings up almost everything else expect for that literal fact that he died on a cross.
I wouldn't usually go on and on about such a simple thing- but the fact is some people have chosen to layer what I said with ideas, interpretations and whatever else...thus rather than discuss gay marriage or equality etc they wanted to dispute the fact that currently, all men and women are equal before the law regarding marriage.Can we just get over this thing now? Fact is noone is allowed to marry someone that someone else is not when it comes to marriage in individual states ergo- equal.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
We will agree to disagee though this statement even though this is augmentative. I was discussing equality in the bigger scope, how can you argue 2 == 2, and even then your example is not even that defined and absolute. By the letter of the law you are correct, down to the word but there is also the intent of the law as well and is part of the reason that we have jury is to understand and judge also based on the intent of the law. I could say Jesus died on the a cross, this is factual but also brings up almost everything else expect for that literal fact that he died on a cross.
I see what your saying...
As for gay marriage...
I said this a while back when I was asked if I was for or against gay marriage:
I believe that the state has no right to dictate whether or not people can engage in marriage...so I am in favour of them having the right to marry.
However, as a Catholic I do not recognise the marriage as valid anymore than I recognise Islam as truth...but I do not try and limit the right of Muslims to practice therefore I wouldn't restrict the right of gay people to marry...
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I said this a while back when I was asked if I was for or against gay marriage:I believe that the state has no right to dictate whether or not people can engage in marriage...so I am in favour of them having the right to marry.
However, as a Catholic I do not recognise the marriage as valid anymore than I recognise Islam as truth...but I do not try and limit the right of Muslims to practice therefore I wouldn't restrict the right of gay people to marry...
So, if you were confronted with a gay married couple, and you needed to interact with them, would you hide the fact that you do not recognize their marriage?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if you were confronted with a gay married couple, and you needed to interact with them, would you hide the fact that you do not recognize their marriage?
Well, a very close friend of mine (women, went on to be a minister in the Episcopal Church before chucking it in due to the treatment she received) is in a relationship with another women. They both know my opinions on Female Priests and Homosexuality...but we get on fine- and yes we talk about it ALL the time!
Of course, it can't be like that every time, if I met a gay married couple I would not go up to them and say "your marriage is false" any more than I would walk up to a hindu and say "your religion is false". If I had to interact with them on a regular basis and they ever asked my opinion on marriage I would tell them straight what I believe- if they, after seeking someone else's opinion- decide they cannot handle diversity of opinion then they can (in the words of Richard Dawkins) **** off.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Well, a very close friend of mine (women, went on to be a minister in the Episcopal Church before chucking it in due to the treatment she received) is in a relationship with another women. They both know my opinions on Female Priests and Homosexuality...but we get on fine- and yes we talk about it ALL the time!Of course, it can't be like that every time, if I met a gay married couple I would not go up to them and say "your marriage is false" any more than I would walk up to a hindu and say "your religion is false". If I had to interact with them on a regular basis and they ever asked my opinion on marriage I would tell them straight what I believe- if they, after seeking someone else's opinion- decide they cannot handle diversity of opinion then they can (in the words of Richard Dawkins) **** off.
Now, would you take that opinion in with you into the poll booth?