Author Topic: #LoveWins  (Read 25391 times)

Offline MAN OF BLUES

  • Arena
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2898
  • Country: 00
  • WHISKEY.Tango.Foxtrot.
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #20 on: June 29, 2015, 02:17:31 am »
I remember when an unwed couple couldn't rent an apartment together.  In twenty years polygamy will be legalized to cover the bisexuals who want a husband and a wife.

I bring this up because in God's eyes heterosexual cohabitation out of marriage is a sin, just like homosexualality, coveting, stealing, etc.  Our laws were based on biblical views but that is now changing.  Making something legal doesn't make it not a sin though.


who's god? and by that I ask you your god, or someone else's god?

there is a specific declination of a division of church and state, and that, by the constitution shall never be crossed...


legal precedence in our United States has no obligation to the word spoken by anyone's specific "god".

this is the basis of our society.

when you lay your "god's" word out, and expect everyone to tow down to it because it is your god... you are doing exactly what led to the creation and the fighting that was what was being done prior to the creation of what "our government" was founded to abolish... it was freedom, and freedom from any and all persecution.

wake up.

and when you want to toss out the religion card, against gay and lesbian relations...
well, if it ain't in the big ten, it aint a problem...
oh, and all those christian ideals, were actually jewish ideals, and vice versa...
man, this gets to ba a real conundrum doesn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

lot'sa angst, and homophobia going on... I bet there is also a lot of racial undertones still brewing also...
maybe folks ought to accept good people by face value, and quit putting badges on others, making them a hated person...
you never know who's blood might save your life, when you are unconscious, and dying.. just saying.


or, we could go back to simply burning witches....




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

Offline VirginiaJim

  • Administrator
  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11018
  • Country: england
  • I've forgotten more than I'll ever know...
    • Kawasaki 1400GTR
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2015, 03:39:41 am »
We don't burn witches any more?
"LOCTITE┬«"  The original thread locker...  #11  2020 Indian Roadmaster, ABS, Cruise control, heated grips and seats 46 Monitoring with cutting edge technology U.N.I.T is Back! 2008 C14 Moved on to a new home, 2016 RM traded in.

Offline gPink

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5639
  • Country: us
  • MMVIII C XIV
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2015, 04:18:46 am »
What we can learn from this is that it has been declared from on high the proper and accepted line of thought has now been given to the unwashed masses and any deviating from this line of thought are branded racist, bigot, homophobe climate change deniers and we only burn opposition witches.
Thank God for good men willing to do extreme violence.

Offline Arata

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Country: us
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2015, 06:48:25 am »
Personal beliefs aside, this is a States rights issue, as that's where marriage licenses are issued.
2014 V Strom 1000
2008 C14
2004 ZRX1200R
1993 GSXR 1100

Offline Stasch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Country: us
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2015, 07:09:12 am »
Quote
lot'sa angst, and homophobia going on... I bet there is also a lot of racial undertones still brewing also...
maybe folks ought to accept good people by face value, and quit putting badges on others, making them a hated person

-----------------------------------------

Quote
What we can learn from this is that it has been declared from on high the proper and accepted line of thought has now been given to the unwashed masses and any deviating from this line of thought are branded racist, bigot, homophobe climate change deniers and we only burn opposition witches.

Statements like this are simply discriminatory and often violate the very premise(s) being defended by either side.

This debate has been raging for a while now in our culture and in this thread.  Aside from my opinions on this specific subject at hand, I am disturbed by statements like these from both sides of the issue.  Its classic 'ad hominem'.

'Homophobia' is a badge.  'On high' is sarcastic.  Both are condescending and a form of a shout down meant to minimize the other person rather than defend / debate the view.

People have a right to their own beliefs.  Debate should be civil and without name calling to minimize the other side.  Just because someone doesn't agree with a view doesn't mean they are inferior or that their views are potentially punishable 'hate speech'.

If someone questions it or wants to debate it logically, there should not be a minimizing or a shout down.  Its bullying and is verbal witch burning, just one from the other side.

This method carried to its natural conclusion means those with the largest pitchfork and torch mob will win, regardless of what natural / moral / legal code is at hand or may be violated.

This is happening on both sides of just about ANY subject within our culture and is DANGEROUS.  We ALL have the right to our beliefs and freedom of expression (at least so far). 

I have no problem with people stating their beliefs and opinions.  I'm always curious to know the thought processes and basis they went through to arrive there.  If I disagree with it, its OK.  I don't hate you and I'm not a villain.  Its HAS to be OK for someone to disagree with or question your line of thought - whatever it may be.

Rue the day that we are forced / punished / fined to avoid speaking against or questioning the Fuhrer of any line of thought.

Stan Visser - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - > C10 STUFF FOR SALE - Parts List

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

Offline twowheeladdict

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1198
  • Country: 00
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2015, 07:14:39 am »
who's god? and by that I ask you your god, or someone else's god?

there is a specific declination of a division of church and state, and that, by the constitution shall never be crossed...


legal precedence in our United States has no obligation to the word spoken by anyone's specific "god".

this is the basis of our society.

when you lay your "god's" word out, and expect everyone to tow down to it because it is your god... you are doing exactly what led to the creation and the fighting that was what was being done prior to the creation of what "our government" was founded to abolish... it was freedom, and freedom from any and all persecution.

wake up.

and when you want to toss out the religion card, against gay and lesbian relations...
well, if it ain't in the big ten, it aint a problem...
oh, and all those christian ideals, were actually jewish ideals, and vice versa...
man, this gets to ba a real conundrum doesn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

lot'sa angst, and homophobia going on... I bet there is also a lot of racial undertones still brewing also...
maybe folks ought to accept good people by face value, and quit putting badges on others, making them a hated person...
you never know who's blood might save your life, when you are unconscious, and dying.. just saying.


or, we could go back to simply burning witches....

http://youtu.be/k3jt5ibfRzw


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

Offline gPink

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5639
  • Country: us
  • MMVIII C XIV
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2015, 07:31:31 am »
-----------------------------------------

Statements like this are simply discriminatory and often violate the very premise(s) being defended by either side.

This debate has been raging for a while now in our culture and in this thread.  Aside from my opinions on this specific subject at hand, I am disturbed by statements like these from both sides of the issue.  Its classic 'ad hominem'.

'Homophobia' is a badge.  'On high' is sarcastic.  Both are condescending and a form of a shout down meant to minimize the other person rather than defend / debate the view.

People have a right to their own beliefs.  Debate should be civil and without name calling to minimize the other side.  Just because someone doesn't agree with a view doesn't mean they are inferior or that their views are potentially punishable 'hate speech'.

If someone questions it or wants to debate it logically, there should not be a minimizing or a shout down.  Its bullying and is verbal witch burning, just one from the other side.

This method carried to its natural conclusion means those with the largest pitchfork and torch mob will win, regardless of what natural / moral / legal code is at hand or may be violated.

This is happening on both sides of just about ANY subject within our culture and is DANGEROUS.  We ALL have the right to our beliefs and freedom of expression (at least so far). 

I have no problem with people stating their beliefs and opinions.  I'm always curious to know the thought processes and basis they went through to arrive there.  If I disagree with it, its OK.  I don't hate you and I'm not a villain.  Its HAS to be OK for someone to disagree with or question your line of thought - whatever it may be.

Rue the day that we are forced / punished / fined to avoid speaking against or questioning the Fuhrer of any line of thought.
My whole post was meant to be sarcastic. 'On high' ,if you need it explained, is your 'betters' handing down opinions as law and deciding which line of thinking is the Official Government Approved line.
Thank God for good men willing to do extreme violence.

Offline BruceR

  • Arena
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
  • Country: us
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2015, 07:35:47 am »
Well, from a religious perspective, priests and preachers are already protected.  You can't (yet) force them to ignore their religious beliefs to perform a same-sex wedding.  It will be interesting to see if others are afforded similar protections.  Should a cake baker, photographer, wedding planner, etc. be sued if they refuse their services to a same-sex couple?  What about those people's rights?  Are their beliefs now diminished? Would a "We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service" sign be all they need?  I'd be wary about forcing some one to take my photos- probably have all the heads cut off.  Would you eat a cake made by a person who was forced to bake it?  I think the SCOTUS is on a slippery slope, very close to trampling over the whole church/state separation.  The debate is far from over, and a whole lot of unintended consequences are sure to pop up.

Offline Stasch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Country: us
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #28 on: June 29, 2015, 07:38:53 am »
Quote
My whole post was meant to be sarcastic. 'On high' ,if you need it explained, is your 'betters' handing down opinions as law and deciding which line of thinking is the Official Government Approved line.

Yes, that was obvious.  I got the sarcasm immediately upon reading it.

I do agree with the point itself you were making, and made the same point with my comment:

Quote
Rue the day that we are forced / punished / fined to avoid speaking against or questioning the Fuhrer of any line of thought.

I still affirm that it has to, no NEEDS to be OK to have differing points of view without the vilifying.   

The alternative has been lived out in the past and is brutal.
Stan Visser - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - > C10 STUFF FOR SALE - Parts List

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

Offline Rhino

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3963
  • Country: us
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2015, 08:12:34 am »
I've been married 39 years to the same woman and it has absolutely nothing to do with some license I got from the state of NM. I haven't looked at it since the day I got it. I have no idea where that piece of paper even is.

voileauciel

  • Guest
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2015, 09:14:33 am »
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.

Offline gPink

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5639
  • Country: us
  • MMVIII C XIV
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2015, 09:34:28 am »
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.

You are absolutely right. I have a government problem and using personal freedom as a pawn in a chess game of population control as this marriage issue has been used is another brick in the wall. There are those who realize and use turmoil and chaos as a means to power. Unfortunately I don't think this is over.   
Thank God for good men willing to do extreme violence.

Offline Stasch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Country: us
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2015, 09:38:33 am »
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.


Its not a logical argument to me to say that if all do not adhere to a particular standard, it somehow negates that standard, if that's what you are getting at.

The question leads to broader questions lying at the heart of all this. 

What is moral, and who defines it? 

Is there an absolute moral code or not?

Does one's answers to those questions hold true universally or selectively?



Stan Visser - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - > C10 STUFF FOR SALE - Parts List

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

Offline Rhino

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3963
  • Country: us
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #33 on: June 29, 2015, 09:57:21 am »
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.


I'm truly happy for you. You certainly never needed my approval and you shouldn't need the governments approval either.

You are absolutely correct when you say some are going to be uncomfortable and that is their problem. But as long as these uncomfortable people do not force their problem upon you, they have every right to be uncomfortable. The unintended consequence of this SCOTUS decision (or maybe it is intended) is that many will use this as an excuse to force others to go against their beliefs.

voileauciel

  • Guest
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #34 on: June 29, 2015, 12:05:15 pm »
I'm truly happy for you. You certainly never needed my approval and you shouldn't need the governments approval either.

You are absolutely correct when you say some are going to be uncomfortable and that is their problem. But as long as these uncomfortable people do not force their problem upon you, they have every right to be uncomfortable. The unintended consequence of this SCOTUS decision (or maybe it is intended) is that many will use this as an excuse to force others to go against their beliefs.

Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him. Life as a gay person growing up in this country was not easy. Some got beaten for it (myself included.) Some were murdered. Some had their futures destroyed. Others took their own lives because they just couldn't stand how they were being treated.

It's a sad and sorry state of affairs when a government has to step in to tell an entire country to treat others with respect and equality, but if that's what's needed (see also: slavery, segregation, and women's suffrage) then so be it. Not one GLBTQ person who fought for this wanted anything more than to be treated with the same respect and decency that our straight counterparts already enjoyed.

This decision has zero effect on the vast majority of this country's population. For those of us that it benefits, I think you'll see in the coming years that the positive effects will massively outweigh the negatives. Ascribing anything else to this is pure hubris.


Offline B.D.F.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4923
  • Country: 00
  • It's only really cold if you fall down in it.
    • C-14 farkles you almost cannot ride without.
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #35 on: June 29, 2015, 12:07:16 pm »
I do not believe the courts rule on moral issues, only legal ones. Is there a legal code for all? Yes, the constitution has served us well for a couple of centuries now and, at least in my opinion, continues to do so. I think of it as the giant 'rule book' on what is permissible, what is not and what the state (in this case, 'the state' being the entire gov't on all levels, collectively) has no ability to pronounce judgement over.

Going forward with this thought, the case in question was a challenge based on the fourteenth amendment, which among other things, guarantees 'equal protection under the law' (partial quote: "....,nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). So if 'the state' (the entire gov't or any part) provides a protection (any general benefit or consequence) to anyone or any group, then it must provide those same protections to all persons or groups. In the end, there just is no way around that that I can see and this case really could not have gone any other way given that amendment.

Of course any person or group can oppose this, not like it, hate it outright, protest against it and so forth. We still have freedom of speech and thought (though 'political correctness' is masking that fact). What this ruling does is apply 'the rules of the game' (the Constitution of the US) to individuals and a group (same- sex people wanting the benefits and recognition of marriage) that others (opposite- sex married couples) have been recognized by the same 'rulebook'.

So as always, these discussions just about instantly become about what some like, what some do not like, what is good, what is bad and so forth but in the end (no pun intended given the material being discussed..... and a gigantic Easy Boys!) it is really a pretty simple legal question about whether or not one group can be excluded from rights clearly given to other groups. For me, this generates no emotion at all nor does it effect my thoughts and opinions, it merely answers the relatively simple legal questions 1) do we have a law for this? Yep, fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. Is it being applied correctly, and if not, what would be the remedy? I believe the highest court has answered both of those questions in the only way that it could given the circumstances.

And, at no extra cost, we all get to read the brilliant and scathing dissenting opinion of Antonin Scalia on this ruling- always a pleasure to get a peek into such a brilliant mind (whether he is right or wrong, he is ALWAYS eloquent and superb in writing or speaking IMO).

Brian

<snip>

The question leads to broader questions lying at the heart of all this. 

What is moral, and who defines it? 

Is there an absolute moral code or not?

Does one's answers to those questions hold true universally or selectively?
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: 346
  • Country: us
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #36 on: June 29, 2015, 01:15:34 pm »
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?
Stan Visser - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - > C10 STUFF FOR SALE - Parts List

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

voileauciel

  • Guest
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #37 on: June 29, 2015, 01:22:26 pm »

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 don't know if I should laugh at this or feel genuinely threatened.

Offline Rhino

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3963
  • Country: us
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #38 on: June 29, 2015, 01:26:33 pm »
Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him. Life as a gay person growing up in this country was not easy. Some got beaten for it (myself included.) Some were murdered. Some had their futures destroyed. Others took their own lives because they just couldn't stand how they were being treated.

It's a sad and sorry state of affairs when a government has to step in to tell an entire country to treat others with respect and equality, but if that's what's needed (see also: slavery, segregation, and women's suffrage) then so be it. Not one GLBTQ person who fought for this wanted anything more than to be treated with the same respect and decency that our straight counterparts already enjoyed.

This decision has zero effect on the vast majority of this country's population. For those of us that it benefits, I think you'll see in the coming years that the positive effects will massively outweigh the negatives. Ascribing anything else to this is pure hubris.

I never judged you and I meant it when I said I was truly happy for you.

voileauciel

  • Guest
Re: #LoveWins
« Reply #39 on: June 29, 2015, 01:39:08 pm »
I never judged you and I meant it when I said I was truly happy for you.

Wasn't saying you were. That was to everyone, not just you.