Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

Judge Granade Pulls the Pin on Marriage

du2 Wrote: Feb 16, 2015 12:46 PM
He just told you why not. Accept the answer as the truth, and a rational and reasonable one at that. Multiple spouse issues, already have negative consequences. One can look at the closest cousin of it, serial divorce and remarriage and the complex complications that arise from multiple exes, and subsequent children in all these arrangements. There is no limit on how many MARRIAGES a person can have in a lifetime. Or as David said, now many lovers and children one wants to take on without being married hasn't any limits either. What DOES, are the emotional, physical, financial and geographical resources such situations have.
In response to:

Judge Granade Pulls the Pin on Marriage

du2 Wrote: Feb 16, 2015 12:41 PM
Can't you stick to anything that has NOTHING to do with being gay? It's not gay people demanding anything but being able to marry a single adult who shares the same orientation they have. The way heteros are presumed to be doing. Polyamory and polygamy are not structures to do with gay people, but HETEROSEXUAL men who have entitled themselves to sexual freedom, but women rarely have anything to say and consent to in polygamous cultures. The history of polygamy and polyamory has NEGATIVE social consequences that are WELL documented. Marriage between two gay people, isn't any different than between two heterosexual people. The intent and purpose of marriage remains the same. To make these two consenting adults primary kin, with primary custody and responsibility to each other. If you're already primary kin, or married, then the restriction prevents redundancy, and the standard of consenting adults, protects individuals from coercion. The problem is the anti gay trying to change the goal posts and standards of marriage ONLY for gay people and nobody else. Again, not the gay folks causing problems. But the anti gay demanding of the Constitution and gov't, what is illegal and it cannot in the first place.
In response to:

Judge Granade Pulls the Pin on Marriage

du2 Wrote: Feb 16, 2015 12:35 PM
Being able to work, live and support one's family and be self reliant is a 'lunatic definition'? You really think that no gay person should be self reliant and self determined without the interference of their fellow citizens? No matter how productive and responsible gay citizens are regardless of this? If you're a female, it's weird that you have so little empathy for this situation. Because were in not for the protections of the Bill of Rights, and Constitution where GENDER is concerned, you wouldn't have any rights either.
In response to:

Judge Granade Pulls the Pin on Marriage

du2 Wrote: Feb 16, 2015 12:32 PM
Isn't anyone concerned that a commenter's privacy has been violated? He's not the only one that has suffered this outrage. If you expect any kind of respect for debate and dialogue, than a Christian has an obligation to understand THEIR part in sitting by and letting it happen, or joining in respect for all our privacy. Huckabee is an incompetent slob. Christians are more forgiving of killers and thieves than gay people who have harmed no one. Huckabee, typical of so many Christians willing to accept the assertions of a sociopath that he's redeemed, commuted a killer's sentence. A killer who went on to murder another person. Our nation was founded on rejection of monarchy, that considered themselves divinely entitled to rule other people. Christians have done a lot of damage in this country. To the indigenous, being in support of violating women and people of color. Now they act as if divinely entitled to rule over more vulnerable populations like gay and transgender individuals. Making a mess of such lives in the process and creating so much hostility, and innocent gay or transgender kid can't go about their lives without fear of threat and violence. Your comment is a disgraceful display of conveniently forgetting how the Constitution and it's mission statement of PROTECTING rights and freedoms, is demanded on from Christians to become one of denial of them.
In response to:

Judge Granade Pulls the Pin on Marriage

du2 Wrote: Feb 16, 2015 12:23 PM
When I think about how a gay man like Alan Turing saved so many lives during WW2, it's likely that it's because of a gay man the world was saved from the Nazi scourge. A 16 year old gay kid discovered a protein that can detect prostate cancer so early, as to be track to curing it. HE has saved millions of lives, and the fertility of millions of men. Don't EVER underestimate what the talents of a gay person could be when it comes to the future of humanity. Our nation and world is already paying a heavy price for dismissing the abilities of women and people of color already.
In response to:

Judge Granade Pulls the Pin on Marriage

du2 Wrote: Feb 16, 2015 12:20 PM
How can you target a business, when you don't know WHAT the religion of the bakers, or other vendors are? They aren't houses of worship. They are open to the public that doesn't have to share their religion or be religious at all. That's why such an accusation is not just empty, it's stupid. It's the bakers targeting gay people, because coming in as a couple needing a wedding cake is the only way they find out it's an ss couple. Again, they don't refuse customers on the basis of sexual morality, and didn't before. Only the gay customers. THAT is what defines discrimination against the customer,not discrimination against the baker. The paying gay customer was willing, and didn't care what religion the baker was. So it's the baker's fault for not just violating local discrimination ordinances, but also their own religious convictions.
In response to:

Judge Granade Pulls the Pin on Marriage

du2 Wrote: Feb 16, 2015 12:13 PM
The religious bakers and florists and so on, were NEVER so religious until they were challenged with serving gay customers. They didn't choose their customers on the basis of sexual morality, nor tested them for sins. But suddenly ONLY gay people have to be subject to it, and it be called for a religious basis of sins? See why it didn't work in favor of these wedding service vendors? If they'd rejected ALL their customers on the basis of sins, and LET all their customers know what religions was testing them, they might have won their case. But that is NOT how they did business and they got called out on it. If a business doesn't want to provide ALL the needed services for their employees OR customers for that reason, then yeah, they can choose between their business and their religion. But if they can't do so consistently in either endeavor, then they should consider their other options. The point is here, you can choose your religion AND what business you want to go into. But no one can choose their orientation, color, gender, national origin, so therefore shouldn't be denied any services because of that.
Darb: Do you know how psychological disorders are defined? And redefined? If you EVER read the history of psychiatry and how it's changed in methodology and research, you wouldn't keep flogging that dead horse. Doctors in all the sciences have an obligation to update their research, techniques, quality of test subjects and reporting on findings all the time. They have to maintain their licenses, they have to be tested as well on their knowledge and applications of techniques and medications. Psychiatry is obviously working with a more complex factor, but you are WAY behind. Do some catching up, will you? Disorders, have a range in which doctors have to clearly see if there is a disability of function that keeps an individual from competency in social, professional and physical life. Eventually, they are revealed when the test subjects are integrated into society. PATHOLOGY and PARAPHILIAS are not exclusive, nor more pronounced on the basis of sexual orientation. As for sexual orientation, there are four categories, each with correspondent (meaning mutual), required function and integration. Pathology and paraphilias do not have correspondent, but are ANTI SOCIAL. And it's ONLY the anti social behaviors that require containment, and monitoring of who has it. But even people with CLINICALLY diagnosed disorders, that have a genetic component, like schizophrenia and BPD, aren't denied the right to marry and bear children. Keeping an otherwise productive and responsible gay person from optimizing their self reliance, would ALWAYS be wrong. People who aren't productive and who are irresponsible, still aren't denied the right to marry. But how they burden society typically is revealed too.
Thousands of years of human ignorance and distrust, cannot trump RECENT modern science, research and social justice in defining who is fit to receive human and civil rights. Don't mistake MATING, with the STRUCTURE of marriage. Which has only recently respected females within it. Marriage has changed and evolved to where people can CHOOSE their spouses freely and most of all, for love. Before that, such an arrangement wasn't always the choice of the female, and an economic contract at that. You being sentimental about the archaic ways in which marriage was created, has more to do with revisionist thinking, than reality. Gay people, like hetero people, are required to marry another consenting adult who SHARES THEIR SAME ORIENTATION. Gender was NEVER so rigid, nor narrow in real life. It's only primitive and unenlightened societies that reduce the worth of a person to the function of their genitals and reproductive organs. Which is brutal insanity, since those can lose function or be lost altogether, while the heart, mind and hands remain. The raising of a child isn't a talent bestowed on anyone on the basis of gender, but heart and mind, actually. It's not a group ability, it's an individual one. The statistics on child poverty, abuse, neglect and violence in America can tell you that. So no, gender actually DOESN'T matter. Nurturing always did take more than just the parents anyway. And each adult, regardless their orientation, can still offer societal support beyond that of children. And gay people ALWAYS have, whether you like to think so or not.
There isn't any requirement ANYWHERE in law, that only mothers and fathers and potential mothers and fathers are qualified to marry. THAT is the first defense that's illegal anywhere. And the testimony YOU'RE citing, and the Regnerus Study, THEY tried to use as an example, was refuted and long ago dismissed as illegitimate because they didn't compare the children from households in which the gay parents had ALWAYS been together since before their children were born or came to them. These testimonies came from TWO adults, whose parents had DIVORCED and later became involved with a ss partner. The smart kids in the class, would compare ALL the children of DIVORCE and conclude it was the DIVORCE that traumatized them, NOT having a gay parent. Because at no time, have they said that their gay parents abused them. Nor was their parent's behavior anything exclusive TO gay adults. There was no 'desire to fulfull the adoptive desires' of homosexual couples. But meeting the overwhelming need for competent parents, because heterosexuals can't stop irresponsibly breeding all over the place and burdening every CPS in the country with more supply than demand.
In response to:

Judge Granade Pulls the Pin on Marriage

du2 Wrote: Feb 15, 2015 11:32 AM
Morals, are utterly about how one human being treats another. Morals are ethics, compassion, empathy, allowing equal opportunity and justice. Protecting who is most vulnerable, and enabling the above qualities. It's not brutal enforcement, control and inciting fear, and maintaining ignorance. The march towards more equal justice and opportunity for gay citizens, has come through DUE PROCESS OF LAW. It's gay people who are threatened for being the most honest, forthright and whose goals aren't ambiguous or threatening. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about court cases, judges, legislation or social integrity. It's every citizen's right to engage these checks and balances of government. Natural law, and religious enforcement CANNOT be the deciding factor. I guess because you've never REALLY big subject to that kind of brutality in real life, you have the luxury of not just ignorance about it. But deciding only a vulnerable part of humanity deserves to suffer for it.
Previous 21 - 30 Next