Author Topic: #LoveWins  (Read 27021 times)

Offline twowheeladdict

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1198
  • Country: 00
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #40 on: June 29, 2015, 02:05:30 PM »
To the ones who are opposed to this, based purely on Biblical rules, how do you feel about the following?

25 things the Bible forbids (but we still do)

To those offering words of support, thank you so very kindly for it. To those against this, if my relationship with another human being makes you uncomfortable, I'm not the problem, you are.

Sin is sin.  Many Christians try to ignore the fact, but it doesn't change it.  We all sin and fall short.  No one said it would be easy.  The sin of Homosexuality is no different in the eyes of the Lord than the sin of greed or pride.  Trying to normalize it doesn't make it any different.  If all so called Christians started having affairs and decided that was the new norm, it wouldn't change what God says.

I am a sinner, but I don't try and normalize or justify my sin.  I try to be better but will continue to fall short.  I am so glad that I don't live under the LAW of the Old Testament. 

My Concours Travels:
2014 New England Tour http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=17336.msg212077#msg212077

Offline B.D.F.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4955
  • Country: 00
  • It's only really cold if you fall down in it.
    • C-14 farkles you almost cannot ride without.
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #41 on: June 29, 2015, 02:24:31 PM »
Well, I think it is not an extension of rights (I would call it personal liberties but that is a small matter) but merely another group brought under the umbrella of specific rights. The fourteenth amendment dates back to 1868 and originally written and adopted as part of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment group addressing the end of slavery and the current state of the black man in the US. Nevertheless, that is NOT what the words say: they specifically say: "....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.". This amendment has probably had more unintended consequences than virtually all others combined but again, it is the law of the land until such time as it is specifically overturned or limited by another amendment to the constitution.

So to me, as far as legal status, legal rulings and the 'law of the land', it is about nothing beyond the law, and not even any new laws at that, merely the application of a very old one.

As to your moral issue or question, I have absolutely no opinion on that. Further, I do not particularly care about the moral factors so it is not likely I will be forming an opinion about it anytime soon.  :D 

As far as morals in general, I believe each group of people (each 'society') defines that for themselves. Because such groups overlap, it inevitably results in clashes of what two different groups believe to the the 'correct' moral answer.

In fact, I guess our thinking is about 180 degrees apart here; as long as the issue(s) is legal, and there is a legal means to address it, things <generally> are fairly straightforward. When the law gets mixed up with different group morals is when things become very muddy and basically the law is not able, again in my opinion, to render any resolution that could be regarded as 'correct' in a general sense. Abortion is such an issue and I believe our judicial system has done a fantastic job of walking that oh so slippery slope: abortion is not to be interfered with in the US until such time as the fetus is considered a viable life, able to live outside the mother, at which point it (he / she) has become a citizen of the US and subject to our laws and (here comes the important part) our protections, the one at point here is freedom from being killed. Again, this is not a moral judgement in any way in my opinion, simply a legal one and the only one the legal system could possibly have generated. I do not believe it is within the grasp of the gov't of the US to dictate moral decisions and by grasp I mean both the ability as well as having the right to do so.

I absolutely do agree wtih you about this ruling being the result of cultural change and would not have been possible, say, 30 years ago. Still, I believe this cultural change has mererly allowed the law to be cited and applied in this particular case and morality can be left out of the supreme court ruling.

My youngest son is now looking at the US Supreme Court's docket and planning on attending a hearing if he can find one coming up that he finds interesting. The case of 'Worcester v. Georgia' would probably be of interest to him but I think he missed that one.... :-)

Brian

This ruling is symptomatic of the cultural change underway for decades now, with both sides highly opposed.

This was way more than about extending rights.  There were no rights to extend without a redefinition of a significant cultural norm.  That redefinition is the issue and source of division. 

I agree with the opinion that this will convolute and become far-fetched as this carries out to its natural conclusion and unintended consequences unfold.

-----------

I agree that legal is not moral, but they should be intrinsically linked or legal becomes corrupt.

It seems invalid circular reasoning to say the removal of a standard is warranted, simply because some aren't adhering to it any more.

If you carry that out to 'don't kill, don't steal' it becomes absurd. 

The big question remains:  What is moral and who decides?  What is the foundation of that?  Is it relative / subjective or absolute?
Homo Sapiens Sapiens and just a tad of Neanderthal but it usually does not show....  My Private mail is blocked; it is not you, it is me, just like that dating partner said all those years ago. Please send an e-mail if you want to contact me privately.

KiPass keeping you up at night? Fuel gauge warning burning your retinas? Get unlimited peace and harmony here: www.incontrolne.com

Offline Stasch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 411
  • Country: us
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #42 on: June 29, 2015, 03:01:16 PM »
I don't know if I should laugh at this or feel genuinely threatened.

It truly wasn't intended to evoke or imply either.  No threat in it at all.  At first blush, your comment does have a touch of ad hominem diversion from the discussion.  If I'm misreading that forgive me.

I'm just saying that if we define something by popular opinion alone, its going to get convoluted because of the differences of opinions.  Nothing is fixed, everything becomes negotiable through redefinition.

Although not in the ruling's language, by omission we're now discriminating against any other arrangement of people / beings that cohabitate together in what they feel is a 'family', but that do not fit into this latest definition rendered by the SC ruling.  Maybe they don't believe in marriage at all, but still wish to be recognized as a family and have rights extended to them through special redefinition. 

That's all I meant by convoluted - in that it will extend out to additional issues that were not initially contemplated.

These definitions for this will vary as widely as the opinions on the matter.  Additional definitions will likely be sought and probably granted and written into rulings.  If I'm wrong I'll admit it.  But I believe it will play out.

This has only just begun the legal redefinition(s) of what marriage and family is.



Edited to add 'of' and 'were'
Stan Visser - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - > C10 STUFF FOR SALE - Parts List

He IS a racer, hence the forward lean!!  by: Mettler1

Offline MAN OF BLUES

  • Arena
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2898
  • Country: 00
  • WHISKEY.Tango.Foxtrot.
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #43 on: June 29, 2015, 03:50:10 PM »
Did I say anything hurtful or hateful in my post?  I don't think so.  If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in Sin.  All I said was that changing man's law doesn't change God's law.  My views are mine and yours are yours.  You just have to accept that and be tolerant of others viewpoints.

when I asked the question "who's god" it wasn't to disparage, it was to make a point.
I never said anything about a god or religion I profess, and that is not the point that should be used, by our elected government, to make any laws.
the main thing I do support is that no matter what our individual religious beliefs are, as a conglomerate of peoples from the whole world, as a country, we simple could not accept the single edged blade of rights and laws, restricting someones rights on their sanctaty of "marriage".
I have zero issue with the SCOTUS decision, and find it holds to the true foundation of our society, which is ever changing, but based on rights of individuals to live in a manner that can be equal for all, not just some.

this was missed in my comments. And constitutional law, simply cannot be based on someones belief that something is a sin.

the phrase "all men are created equal....." is slightly outdated, and could be written today as " all people are created equall....", I,m all for that being corrected also.... maybe someday....

just glad we have surpassed the Orwellian state of "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"...
our nation was founded on the premis that those people, who were escaping religious persecution, came to the America's and their descendents all raped, plundered and pilliaged this beautiful new place, molding it into a "perfect"(as they saw it) society...

if boatloads of Druids had landed here, might have made an interesting difference.

having been curious, I thought to do a little search, to educate myself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality

if its on wiki, it has to be true, just joking.

46 YEARS OF KAW.....  47 years of DEVO..

Offline ZG

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6677
  • Country: us
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #44 on: June 29, 2015, 06:01:26 PM »

Offline just gone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Country: us
  • COG#9712 '10 ABS
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #45 on: June 29, 2015, 06:14:00 PM »

Offline gPink

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5686
  • Country: cn
  • MMVIII C XIV
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #46 on: June 29, 2015, 06:15:09 PM »
 :rotflmao:

Offline B.D.F.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4955
  • Country: 00
  • It's only really cold if you fall down in it.
    • C-14 farkles you almost cannot ride without.
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #47 on: June 29, 2015, 09:50:23 PM »
Homo Sapiens Sapiens and just a tad of Neanderthal but it usually does not show....  My Private mail is blocked; it is not you, it is me, just like that dating partner said all those years ago. Please send an e-mail if you want to contact me privately.

KiPass keeping you up at night? Fuel gauge warning burning your retinas? Get unlimited peace and harmony here: www.incontrolne.com

Offline twowheeladdict

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1198
  • Country: 00
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #48 on: June 30, 2015, 03:40:36 AM »

the phrase "all men are created equal....." is slightly outdated, and could be written today as " all people are created equall....", I,m all for that being corrected also.... maybe someday....



In the eyes of animal activists, it should read all creatures are created equal.  Different people with different viewpoints. 
My Concours Travels:
2014 New England Tour http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=17336.msg212077#msg212077

Offline gPink

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5686
  • Country: cn
  • MMVIII C XIV
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #49 on: June 30, 2015, 03:43:11 AM »
In the eyes of animal activists, it should read all creatures are created equal. Different people with different viewpoints.

Different strokes for different folks?

Offline BruceR

  • Arena
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
  • Country: us
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #50 on: June 30, 2015, 07:01:52 AM »
Different strokes for different folks?
I think stroking was in that list of 25 sins...and my mother lied.  I am certainly not blind yet, and have tested her theory many many times  ;D

Offline gPink

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5686
  • Country: cn
  • MMVIII C XIV
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #51 on: June 30, 2015, 07:28:45 AM »
love doesn't always win....http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/29/black-lives-matter-protesters-disrupt-chicago-gay-pride-parade/

BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTERS DISRUPT CHICAGO GAY PRIDE PARADE

Chicago’s 47th annual gay pride parade was disrupted several times by the usual city disruptions — gang activity, gunshots, and drunks — but the event was also disrupted by a car driving into a group of bystanders. Then there was an even larger interruption by “black lives matter” protesters.

Just about every Chicago parade these days features gunfire in the perimeters as gangs clash with police and drunks have probably been a parade disruption since forever. But this year a man tried to drive into the parade route, ramming his car into some bystanders — but not hurting anyone seriously.

Police swarmed the vehicle, smashed in the rear window and yanked out the driver, a middle-aged white man, and arrested him. Chicago police have released no details on the man’s identity nor his motivations for ramming the barricades for the parade.

But by far the biggest disruption was from a large group of “black lives matter” protesters. The group was joined by members of the black queer community of Chicago who announced the disruption on their website.

After noting that they had “purposefully disrupted the Chicago Pride Parade,” the queer group explained their reasoning.

“We do so,” the group said, “because our people are dying at the hands of police, military and state-funded militias around the globe. We do so because we refuse to be tokenized by the same corporations that sponsor state violence, refuse a living wage and profit off our poverty. We do so because young queer people need a better outlet to celebrate themselves than a mire of consumption and sexual violence.”

The queer group was also attacked by the “black lives matter” protesters who held signs and walked as a group to push their own message.

Offline Jim M.

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Country: us
  • 2008 C-14
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #52 on: June 30, 2015, 09:01:21 AM »
 My question has always been- Why was Civil Union not good enough and it had to be a "Marriage"? It just seems that the civil union would have taken any religion completely out of the equation. Also a civil union would give any adult the opportunity to share property and benefits with any other adult whether gay or not, like a care giver to an elderly or handicapped parent/child. It would seem that would be more across the board equality than the present decision. I would also think that traditional married couples would also have to include a civil union agreement along with their marriage certificate so the church would have its tradition, and the state would have its legal contract. That would assure the separation of the two. So was the "marriage" terminology really nothing more than something just to flaunt in the face of religion or is there some other purpose to it that I don't understand?
 

Offline Steve in Sunny Fla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1123
  • Country: 00
    • Shoodaben Engineering
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #53 on: June 30, 2015, 11:58:02 AM »
 So this is all about constitutionally protected rights, correct? Does that mean those at the forefront of this battle for basic human rights support others rights to voice disagreement or are they hypocrites?

 All I'm saying is this is a big world and lots of different ways for us to live our lives, as long as we aren't harming others. Is this current search for rights respectful of those who voice disagreement, and are you willing to protect that right to disagree? Steve

voileauciel

  • Guest
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #54 on: June 30, 2015, 02:30:51 PM »
My question has always been- Why was Civil Union not good enough and it had to be a "Marriage"? It just seems that the civil union would have taken any religion completely out of the equation. Also a civil union would give any adult the opportunity to share property and benefits with any other adult whether gay or not, like a care giver to an elderly or handicapped parent/child. It would seem that would be more across the board equality than the present decision. I would also think that traditional married couples would also have to include a civil union agreement along with their marriage certificate so the church would have its tradition, and the state would have its legal contract. That would assure the separation of the two. So was the "marriage" terminology really nothing more than something just to flaunt in the face of religion or is there some other purpose to it that I don't understand?
 

“Separate but equal” was often the argument used in favor of racial segregation in schools. Ever since the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954, the Supreme Court has consistently found separate-but-equal laws to be unconstitutional.

AlbertaDoug

  • Guest
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2015, 03:45:40 PM »
I think stroking was in that list of 25 sins...and my mother lied.  I am certainly not blind yet, and have tested her theory many many times  ;D

Now that's funny  ;D :rotflmao: :chugbeer:
Live and let live.

Offline B.D.F.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4955
  • Country: 00
  • It's only really cold if you fall down in it.
    • C-14 farkles you almost cannot ride without.
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #56 on: June 30, 2015, 04:26:30 PM »
Enough of this legal and moral wrangling- I will ask the question we all really want to know..... who is the lucky guy? I mean the other lucky guy....

Brian
Homo Sapiens Sapiens and just a tad of Neanderthal but it usually does not show....  My Private mail is blocked; it is not you, it is me, just like that dating partner said all those years ago. Please send an e-mail if you want to contact me privately.

KiPass keeping you up at night? Fuel gauge warning burning your retinas? Get unlimited peace and harmony here: www.incontrolne.com

voileauciel

  • Guest
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #57 on: June 30, 2015, 05:42:25 PM »
Enough of this legal and moral wrangling- I will ask the question we all really want to know..... who is the lucky guy? I mean the other lucky guy....

Brian

No one currently. This wasn't about me, personally, believe it or not. This was on behalf of the 10 million+ GLBTQ Americans who benefit from this. Maybe someday I'll find myself a husband, but right now I'm in no rush. The single life is treating me just fine.  8)

Offline Nosmo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
  • Country: us
  • "We're all in this together." - Red Green
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #58 on: June 30, 2015, 07:44:50 PM »
I think stroking was in that list of 25 sins...and my mother lied.  I am certainly not blind yet, and have tested her theory many many times  ;D

That explains my cataracts.
A life undreamed is a waste.  A dream unlived is a sin.

Offline Jim M.

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Country: us
  • 2008 C-14
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #59 on: July 01, 2015, 07:52:40 AM »
So this is all about constitutionally protected rights, correct?


Actually there is no protection of marriage at all, either gay or straight, written into the Constitution. And of course,  written into the Constitution is that rights not covered by the Constitution is to be covered by the states. So should this indeed be a state's rights issue as the Fed has no dog in this race?