|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 30, 2022 12:28:51 GMT -5
I've proven the point. Secularism is a modern invention. That doesn't, in any way, mean it's a bad thing. I don't think it's bad, personally. That said, there needs to be respect for where it all came from. Humans were, for a long, long time, exclusively religious. China says hello. You literally just make %*$# up and posit it as truth.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Mar 30, 2022 12:32:48 GMT -5
The issue I see is that there is a distinct group of people literally advocating for “marriage” to be reserved only for religiously sanctioned unions. For whatever reasons, they’re the ones who want to control the word for reasons they can explain better since there are several. But at the heart, it’s some religiously minded who believe that it cheapens their definition of marriage when others claim to be married in a fashion that they don’t approve of, whether it’s a same sex couple, two atheists, or whatever. So no it’s not me who wants to control the word marriage, it’s them. I’m not going to tell them that their definition is wrong. They tell others that only they can decide who is married. That’s just wrong. But what does it matter, if it's just a word? That's the extent to where I agree with them. If you have two paths, which lead to exactly the same benefits .... I don't see any problem at all reserving the word "marriage" for a religious ceremony. Again, IF it's just the word. What I can't tell, is if they are also (perhaps quietly) wanting to reserve some of the total (legal, tax, etc.) benefits specially for those married.
Because it’s not the place of the religious to tell others that they don’t meet their standards and thus can’t be “married”. It’s actually quite simple. The only argument is to claim some sort of moral superiority for unions sanctioned via religious authority as the only unions worthy of being called marriage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2022 12:36:43 GMT -5
Chinese people aren't religious? They don't believe in an afterlife? They never believed in "gods" or equivalent spiritual powers? Who's making ___ up?? 🙄
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2022 12:38:41 GMT -5
But what does it matter, if it's just a word? That's the extent to where I agree with them. If you have two paths, which lead to exactly the same benefits .... I don't see any problem at all reserving the word "marriage" for a religious ceremony. Again, IF it's just the word. What I can't tell, is if they are also (perhaps quietly) wanting to reserve some of the total (legal, tax, etc.) benefits specially for those married.
Because it’s not the place of the religious to tell others that they don’t meet their standards and thus can’t be “married”. It’s actually quite simple. The only argument is to claim some sort of moral superiority for unions sanctioned via religious authority as the only unions worthy of being called marriage. Quite certainly, any church has the right to declare that it won't conduct a marriage ceremony of the two adults don't meet its religious standards. Surely, you weren't suggesting otherwise.
OK.
Then the government shouldn't use that word, in regards to the laws it codifies giving legally united people X, Y, and Z benefits.
Just turn over the word, and lose nothing.
But you can't do it .... can you? You need to assert control over religious folks.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Mar 30, 2022 12:47:27 GMT -5
Because it’s not the place of the religious to tell others that they don’t meet their standards and thus can’t be “married”. It’s actually quite simple. The only argument is to claim some sort of moral superiority for unions sanctioned via religious authority as the only unions worthy of being called marriage. Quite certainly, any church has the right to declare that it won't conduct a marriage ceremony of the two adults don't meet its religious standards. Surely, you weren't suggesting otherwise. OK. Then the government shouldn't use that word, in regards to the laws it codifies giving legally united people X, Y, and Z benefits. Just turn over the word, and lose nothing. But you can't do it .... can you? You need to assert control over religious folks.
And give up a tradition of several centuries of civil marriage? No thanks. The only reason to do so would be to placate religious bigots.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Mar 30, 2022 12:49:54 GMT -5
Because it’s not the place of the religious to tell others that they don’t meet their standards and thus can’t be “married”. It’s actually quite simple. The only argument is to claim some sort of moral superiority for unions sanctioned via religious authority as the only unions worthy of being called marriage. Quite certainly, any church has the right to declare that it won't conduct a marriage ceremony of the two adults don't meet its religious standards. Surely, you weren't suggesting otherwise.
OK.
Then the government shouldn't use that word, in regards to the laws it codifies giving legally united people X, Y, and Z benefits.
Just turn over the word, and lose nothing.
But you can't do it .... can you? You need to assert control over religious folks.
Truth is an ugly thing
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Mar 30, 2022 12:50:51 GMT -5
Quite certainly, any church has the right to declare that it won't conduct a marriage ceremony of the two adults don't meet its religious standards. Surely, you weren't suggesting otherwise. OK. Then the government shouldn't use that word, in regards to the laws it codifies giving legally united people X, Y, and Z benefits. Just turn over the word, and lose nothing. But you can't do it .... can you? You need to assert control over religious folks.
And give up a tradition of several centuries of civil marriage? No thanks. The only reason to do so would be to placate religious bigots. Let me see you hate cops, you hate conservatives, you hate patriotic people, You hate religion,you hate traditional marriage, your life is just one big lollipop.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Mar 30, 2022 15:22:23 GMT -5
you support the 1/6 insurrection that killed cops. What is traditional marriage? Is interracial marriage, traditional Are you just homophobic?
|
|
|
Post by valleyvolley1 on Mar 30, 2022 16:36:19 GMT -5
you support the 1/6 insurrection that killed cops. What is traditional marriage? Is interracial marriage, traditional Are you just homophobic? Lame comment. You support the BLM insurrection that killed cops and ordinary citizens. Of course you bring in race to an arguement...about a 45 IQ.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 30, 2022 16:49:54 GMT -5
Can you name even a single police officer who was killed by "BLM insurrection"? I'm not aware of any police death attributed to that.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Mar 30, 2022 16:57:06 GMT -5
Can you name even a single police officer who was killed by "BLM insurrection"? I'm not aware of any police death attributed to that. IIRC, there was a retired cop in St. Louis who was shot at a jewelry store or pawn shop, but I don't know if they ever determined if his death was in the course of a robbery or connected to a BLM protest. Other than that, blanks (no pun intended). Also, "BLM insurrection." Hoo Boy.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Mar 30, 2022 17:07:48 GMT -5
you support the 1/6 insurrection that killed cops. What is traditional marriage? Is interracial marriage, traditional Are you just homophobic? Again, it did not kill a cop, stop giving that false information. He died of a heart attack.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Mar 30, 2022 17:08:22 GMT -5
Can you name even a single police officer who was killed by "BLM insurrection"? I'm not aware of any police death attributed to that. I don’t remember any. The only death I recall when all this stuff went on was a DHS officer in Oakland randomly shot to death by a member of the Boogaloo Boys.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 30, 2022 17:27:45 GMT -5
you support the 1/6 insurrection that killed cops. What is traditional marriage? Is interracial marriage, traditional Are you just homophobic? Again, it did not kill a cop, stop giving that false information. He died of a heart attack. He died of stroke that he suffered about 10 pm on January 6th. You are downplaying the circumstances involved, because we have no idea whether the assault was causally related to his stroke or not. The official ruling was "natural causes", but during the assault he was sprayed in the face with bear spray by some Trump-loving "patriots". It's just not clear whether he would have had a stroke anyway or whether the trauma and stress of the day contributed to his death. Wikipedia: The District of Columbia chief medical examiner found that Sicknick had died from stroke, classifying his death as natural and additionally commented that "all that transpired played a role in his condition."
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Mar 30, 2022 17:58:46 GMT -5
Again, it did not kill a cop, stop giving that false information. He died of a heart attack. He died of stroke that he suffered about 10 pm on January 6th. You are downplaying the circumstances involved, because we have no idea whether the assault was causally related to his stroke or not. The official ruling was "natural causes", but during the assault he was sprayed in the face with bear spray by some Trump-loving "patriots". It's just not clear whether he would have had a stroke anyway or whether the trauma and stress of the day contributed to his death. Wikipedia: The District of Columbia chief medical examiner found that Sicknick had died from stroke, classifying his death as natural and additionally commented that "all that transpired played a role in his condition." Did he die of injuries from the so-called insurrection Mike yes or no? No he didn’t. Did the police officer in St. Louis die due to the rioting? Yes he did.
|
|