Originally posted by SnakeTom:
You don't answer my questions about how it negatively affects your life (it doesn't) or why you constantly try to impose your religious views upon others but rather you post a series of totally irrelevant questions to the issue tryng to change the focus of the discussion. Yes I see it as a civil rights issue & as one of basic fairness. But then again our disagreement on this topic duoesn't surprise me as we rarely agree on anything.
TK6/3 10:08 PM | IP: Logged
Aha! So it is reason #2 BECAUSE of #3. I wish you had just stated that originally.
Well then, let me try to connect the dots for you.
1. I started by saying that redefining Marriage was not fair or just on its own merits.
2. You said that economics trumps semantics.
3. I said I had posited ALL economic parity (insurance, pensions, tax, estate, etc) but saw no need to redefine a word consistently used by governments and religions in only one way for 3,900 years.
4. You said the state has the power to define a word anyway it wants.
5. I never disagreed with that state power, but said that just having the power did not make its exercise right in all cases. I cited the Legislature of Indiana defining Pi as 3.2. Legal, but stupid and unfair.
6. You said that using the word Civil Union would make homosexual couples feel different.
7. I said that the state may call ALL of these sanctioned social contracts Civil Unions so they would not be different.
8. You then asked how the mere semantics of the word marriage 'negatively affects your (ed: my) life'.
9. I explained that the word was a Catholic sacrament, instituted by Jesus Christ, Himself, and that it would be a sacrilege for its antithetical use to be sanctioned by the government.
10. You then said this did not 'harm' me and 'should' be of no interest to me.
11. Since the term 'sacred' did not seem to resonate its import to you, I then cited a handful of examples in which one group of citizens rights (feelings) were protected when a second group tried to voice its rights on something important to the first group. Legally, I cited both copyright law and laws on lewd conduct. Socially, I cited 9-11, respect for cemeteries, the 'N' word, commercial exploitation ('Holy Eucharist Bread Sticks'), and others. I cited the importance of 'legal precedent' in American jurisprudence, and gave long lived examples of the precedent in this case.
12. You unilaterally declare these to be 'totally irrelevant questions' with absolutely no explanation whatsoever of how you justify such an opinion.
So, once again, I present my social analogs for how this word change 'negatively affects (my) life' and my legal precedents on why I 'see it as a civil rights issue & as one of basic fairness' and would hurt the feelings of 30-60 times as many US citizens'.
Here is the list from above. Please explain to me why each one is irrelevant. Also, please explain why you feel justified in calling these defenses those of a 'bigot'. Then please cite reasons and precedent on why you 'see it as a civil rights issue & as one of basic fairness'.A. Please answer whether it is okay to ignore the feelings of the survivors of 9-11 who oppose the construction of a mosque on ground zero.
B. Please answer whether it is okay to ignore the feelings of the survivors of deceased people who were buried in city cemeteries over the last 300 years under the hypothetical that the cities can generate significant economic value from converting said cemeteries to strip malls and parking lots.
C. Please tell me whether 'precedent' is ignored or honored in the American system of jurisprudence.
D. Are American copyright laws irrelevant?
E. Are American laws on lewd conduct irrelevant?
F. Why do the feelings of a group representing 1% of the population over what you say is a mere semantical difference trump the feelings of 30%-60% of the population which feel a sacred word would be violated, religious people who have demonstrated their willingness to suffer imprisonment and death over sacred words?
G. Why should the 'precedent' set consistently by the governments and religions of every single country in the world over 3,900 of the last 3,920 years be sloughed off like yesterday's NY Post?
Now to your new post:
You blatantly charge that I ''constantly try to impose your (ed: my) religious views upon others''. Such a charge is outrageous and unmerited! Please cite even one instance, one direct quote from me, in which I have done this. One direct quote from me in any thread of the last 20 years I have been posting on this board or any of the predecessor boards you have graciously organized. This comment is totally uncalled for, unfair and so beneath you.
Are you construing my right to defend my Constitutionally guaranteed right --- to worship in the way I choose --- against Obama's unconstitutional attack's on this basic liberty as my 'imposing (my) religious views on others'?
I have never once tried to impose my religious views on ANYONE. I have acquiesced to you for all of the homosexual people in country to get all of the economic and civil-contract privileges which any government deems to be fit. I have made no judgment on anyone for following his/her own conscience in any way. I even acquiesced to others choosing bestiality if they are so inclined. I shall not support nor laud it, but it is a free country.
What I do 'see...as a civil rights issue &...one of basic fairness' for me and for100-million other Americans is the defense of OUR feelings, of OUR rights to justice, of OUR 3,900 year-old legally precedented protection, similar to the copyright and lewd conduct laws of the US. I ask you: why do you disparage the rights of Christians when you rally to defend these same rights for others?
This post was edited on 6/4 11:51 AM by Old_alum
