Previous 21 - 30 Next
"Lost" emails are like fiscal "conservatives;" they don't actually exist.
In response to:

Who Won't Wear The Cord?

Chries Wrote: Jun 17, 2014 5:09 PM
Wow! The issues surrounding the Lavender Cord sound very similar to the issues surrounding same-sex "marriage." (am I a hater for putting marriage in quotes?)
You don't really seem to directly address any of my original ideas or issues when you respond to me. Therefore, I'll make this my final response to you. First, I never even mentioned "the legal differences of males and females" so my example never "fell apart." Second, your use of Loving v. Virginia is specious when discussing the redefinition of marriage, since interracial marriage is not in any way equivalent to same-sex unions. I have very little in common with any woman except my wife (as it should be). I have almost everything in common with every man on earth, except skin color. Finally, I was addressing the basic nature of men (desiring variety) and the basic nature of women (desiring exclusivity)- this would especially apply to young adults (which is when most people marry and start families). Your example of Jim Nabors is sweet but does not really apply for a couple of reasons: 1. Two men in an exclusive relationship is the exception rather than the rule. There are studies to back that up, if you'd care to look for them. 2. By my math, Jim Nabors and his "husband" were middle aged or older when they got together. All that being said, I am not opposed to anybody having a wedding ceremony. I am opposed to redefining marriage and I am opposed to tyrants-posing-as-judges forcing that redefinition on society. Good day, sir.
"So you are fine with two women getting married? is that it?" I won't answer for CC (he's demented, IMHO), but I don't oppose anyone getting married (I think it's natural for women to want that kind of bond, not men); I just oppose redefining marriage - period. From a strictly political view, I am opposed to judges determining this rather than the electorate. When judges overturn a legal and duly rendered plebiscite, then those judges have too much power. Of course, people might counter that the courts were used to overturn Jim Crow laws. To that I say, gay rights are not in any way equivalent to the Civil Rights Movement on behalf of blacks, since the "persecution" of gays is in no way equivalent to the genuine persecution of blacks in this country.
Thanks for clarifying, Amy. (WHEW!)
Tinsldr2 Wrote: "Is there a difference [between 2 women & 2 men marrying] legally? If not why would you ask?" "why would you ask?" Because, two lesbians making a commitment is WAY different from two guys making a commitment. It's nature for women to want to make an exclusive life-long commitment, it goes against nature for guys to want to do that. That's why natural marriage - the union of opposites (one-man-one-woman) - has served as a civilizing influence on men (and why we should never redefine marriage).
"why would you ask?" Because, two lesbians making a commitment is WAY different from two guys making a commitment. It's nature for women to want to make an exclusive life-long commitment, it goes against nature for guys to want to do that. That's why natural marriage - the union of opposites (one-man-one-woman) - has served as a civilizing influence on men (and why we should never redefine marriage).
"... making a wedding dress out of tissue paper" Amy, I hope if someone steals that idea they pay you a royalty. :-)
"But the law says he must serve them." There it is again, Tinsldr. My grandfather constantly violated racist Jim Crow laws, as a matter of conscience. He would also have violated this law on the same basis. You clearly think that Jim Crow laws are immoral; are you saying this law is moral? On what do you base your morality? On what basis do you make your judgments? And, AmyDB, are you seriously implying the cake chef should be compelled to bake a wedding cake in violation of his conscience?
"if you are a Gov employee then you must follow the rules of your employment" That's the same kind of thinking that was used to justify segregation and Jim Crow. Tinsldr, you probably would have advised the bus driver in Selma (a government employee) to force Rosa Parks to move to the back of the bus. I just want to point out; you're advocating fascism. Remember the way the Nazis "were just following orders?"
Darby, I agree with Mr. Barber and I think it is time for reasonable fanaticism (we used to call it being an American).
Previous 21 - 30 Next