Same-Sex marriages banned ?

Originally posted by keholmes
Prior to activist judges legislating from the bench � thought-> marriage: religious institution co-opted by the government to collect taxes in yet a new and unique way. Definition = man and woman probably family related
After activist judges legislating from the bench � thought -> marriage: religious institution co-opted by the government to collect taxes in yet a new and unique way. Further expanded by the judiciary in contravention to the constitution to include gays; this is done because gays are desirous of the title. They appear a little different and it wasn�t a voluntary change, I wonder what prompted the change, hmmm?

Your still free to think what you like, keholmes. As an example, If you wanted to, you'd be free to think that Michael Moore should die a horrible death. However, if you decided to act upon that thought; ending up perpetrating an act of murder, then that act would no doubt cause 'policing'. This particular issue somewhat seems to be of semantics, but I'll add what is described as the right to freedom of thought by the 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights':

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

so you don�t believe that gays wanting to be called �married� is PC?

If you want to hear my understanding of this label, then I'd say the actual purpose behind what proponents such as you would like to call 'political correctness' is to prevent the use of offenses such as ''n-word'', 'coons', 'dagos' etc.

But quite honestly, I personally don't subscribe to the label PC.

So clearly you�re for the abolition of affirmative action, elimination of prosecution for fraud, legalization of prostitution, elimination of welfare. And also you�d be in support of allowing spouses to sell/give up for adoption their minor children if they were so inclined, without approval of the other parent, right?

I said the same reasoning should be applied. I also said, I'm taking to account the situation at hand. Few issues are as simple as black and white, therefore society and its government have to take the various surrounding issues into consideration such as equality, moral, ethics etc. I'd say to legislate against the act of marriage for a group, no matter how small, simply based on the sexual preference of two consenting adults is IMO an obvious bias. Again, considering the fact that as it currently stands, marriages are and can be licensed by the government.

one of the previous was directly on point�the president put forth a judicial nomination that both local parties supported�.the liberal constituency allowed the national party to oppose through filibuster his nomination, based on his being �racist�. There are other examples but as I said if you want to close your eyes to the obvious you never will see it.

Again, I would hardly constitute that as satisfactory evidence of how the left is redefining the word 'racist' to 'a person disagreeing with the left', and how this alleged act is supported by the majority. But by all means, feel free to keep posting your 'evidence' of this notion of yours.



[edit on 12-11-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden
Your still free to think what you like, keholmes. ���..

well I prefer to live and think under the same sky�ignoring reality and thinking about some fairy tale I�ve made up to ease my mind isn�t something I will aspire to, sorry.

Originally posted by Durden
If you want to hear my understanding of this label, then I'd say the actual purpose behind what proponents such as you would like to call 'political correctness' is to prevent the use of offenses such as ''n-word'', 'coons', 'dagos' etc����.

I associate PC with the drive to wipe out all �offensive� ideology and it has gone well past the identified.

Originally posted by Durden
I said the same reasoning should be applied. I also said, I'm taking to account the situation at hand. ��������.

so now you�ve got me confused. What part of the state co-opting a religious ceremony and then extending it to a small minority is so moral or ethical? And the funny thing is your arguing my point�.therefore society�..duh society just answered you and they disagree with you.

Originally posted by Durden
����� But by all means, feel free to keep posting your 'evidence' of this notion of yours.

���..

no thanks, I show evidence and you rationalize, or marginalize it�there will never be enough for you that is obvious so I won�t waste my time. If I showed you a poll of demos-only supporting it you would have some lame rationalization for it.

Originally posted by keholmes
well I prefer to live and think under the same sky�ignoring reality and thinking about some fairy tale I�ve made up to ease my mind isn�t something I will aspire to, sorry.

So complete freedom to act upon your every thought without consequence is what you're preaching here, keholmes?

I associate PC with the drive to wipe out all �offensive� ideology and it has gone well past the identified.

Feeling somewhat paranoid, are we?

so now you�ve got me confused. What part of the state co-opting a religious ceremony and then extending it to a small minority is so moral or ethical? And the funny thing is your arguing my point�.therefore society�..duh society just answered you and they disagree with you.

Much like society accepted slavery, witch-hunts etc, etc. back in the day, right? You feel like you want to close the door on the ever important evolution of society now, keholmes? Obviously, the majority ruling usually have the final say, but that doesn't mean we should stop fighting (by legal means) to try and change that which we feel is contratictory to our view of equality, ethics, fundamental rights and freedoms - whatever that view may be.

no thanks, I show evidence and you rationalize, or marginalize it�there will never be enough for you that is obvious so I won�t waste my time. If I showed you a poll of demos-only supporting it you would have some lame rationalization for it.

You want to know why I rationalize and marginalize your 'evidence'? Here's a clue; quite frankly thus far it has shown to deserve no better. But again though, by all means feel free to find more support of your claim.


[edit on 12-11-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden
Again, I would hardly constitute that as satisfactory evidence of how the left is redefining the word 'racist' to 'a person disagreeing with the left', and how this alleged act is supported by the majority. But by all means, feel free to keep posting your 'evidence' of this notion of yours.

Originally posted by Durden
Much like society accepted slavery, witch-hunts etc, etc. back in the day, right? You feel like you want to close the door on the ever important evolution of society now, keholmes? Obviously, the majority ruling usually have the final say, but that doesn't mean we should stop fighting (by legal means) to try and change that which we feel is contratictory to our view of equality, ethics, fundamental rights and freedoms - whatever that view may be.

ding, ding, ding folks we have a winner

Originally posted by Durden
You want to know why I rationalize and marginalize your 'evidence'? Here's a clue; quite frankly thus far it has shown to deserve no better. But again though, by all means feel free to find more support of your claim.

I was wondering when you would finally get around to implying because I didn�t agree with you I must be a racist, thanks for proving me right. BTW as you are so obviously low on supply you should probably keep whatever clues you have, you need them.



[edit on 13-11-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes
I was wondering when you would finally get around to implying because I didn�t agree with you I must be a racist, thanks for proving me right. BTW as you are so obviously low on supply you should probably keep whatever clues you have, you need them.

Evidently we've reached the point where in the face of your poor reasoning capabilities you resort to complete nonsense; adding nothing of value concerning the topic of this thread.

I can't say I'm surprised.



[edit on 13-11-2004 by Durden]

thanks for the added condescension by you, we�ve finally reached the point were most of you�re discussions go�.the point were you haughtily yet again announce the same smug superiority�.alright I admit it as you have stated over and over again in this thread you are superior morally, ethically, based on intelligence, and just oh so tolerant�.just the most round person on earth�..except for that point under your hair, pin head.

forgot you have superior reasoning skills, sorry your highness....so what do you do stock clerk at the local 7-11?

[edit on 13-11-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes
thanks for the added condescension by you, we�ve finally reached the point were most of you�re discussions go�.the point were you haughtily yet again pushing down the same smug superiority�.alright I admit it as you have stated over and over again in this thread you are superior morally, ethically, based on intelligence, and just oh so tolerant�.just the most round person on earth�..except for that point under your hair, pin head.

Well who can argue with such eloquent put points, keholmes.