| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5
6
7
8 |
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldlady
In this country our rights are endowed by our creator. The Bill of Rights is a clarification to ensure the government protects our rights. Read your
own words, Diana, PROTECT not GRANT. And it was reasonably well thought out "nonsense".
I don't know any homophobic people at all; right left or center. I know of a religion that has very strong rules and consequences about homosexual
behavior. How they excercise their tolerance, or how they will overturn our laws when they are on the bench will be interesting. But, demonizing
people with these types of labels (homophobic, racist, bigot) when in fact their concerns may be on the possibility of unintended consequences, is
your consistency, not mine. |
So just who granted those rights? That mystical divine being? That was just fanciful language; and the author knew it. Thus the creator was not
defined, as the author was not a Christian with one of those concrete images of a creator. Besides, if there is that mystical divine being, he/she
or it also created homosexuals. Sorry, but yes the purpose was to PROTECT the rights that they GRANTED to themselves through the new government.
Religion has nothing to do with the debate, or certainly should not be included----we are still hanging on to the separation of church and state,
albeit only by a thread at times.
Certain religions, or certain interpretations of religions can, and will continue to oppose homosexuality, while others embrace it as a part of what
they called God's design.
Called it my consistency, if that makes you feel better, but to deny a segment of the society civil rights is a form of either bigotry or homophobia:
just as racist was a legimate label for those who fought against civil rights for people of color. If you truly do not know anyone who is
homophobic, well that is difficult to believe. I do not know of anyone who does not have at least one member of their family who is homophobic.
Unintended consequences is another one of those straw arguments used to deny people civil rights and to stop progress. Silly and nonsense.
Sorry if you think it is demonizing people---not intended to be so as I am a believer that ignorance, homophobia, and bigotry are curable. And there
are NO rational reasons for denying these civil rights, only hate, intolerance and fear.
[Edited on 8-19-2010 by DianaT]
|
|
|
oldlady
Banned
Posts: 1714
Registered: 10-31-2005
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
It doesn't. You seem to be the only one who thinks those that have reservations about it are doing so because they feel "threatened". Read the Time
study. Only mention of the word marriage is "heterosexual marriage". So...if all these kids were raised well by unmarried people, what's the big
deal about getting married?
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Folks it's about money... it really not that complicated...
1. Denied the Social Security survivor benefits that are made available to all married couples;
2. Heavily taxed on any retirement plan – 401(k) or IRA – they inherit from their partners, although married spouses can inherit these plans tax-free;
and
3. Charged an estate tax on the inheritance of a home, even if it was jointly owned – a tax that would not apply to married spouses.
One can couch it in any vehicle they wish...
|
|
|
Ken Bondy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3326
Registered: 12-13-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mellow
|
|
It astonishes me that christians can emphatically claim that homosexuality is an abomination, on the basis of what their bible says (Leviticus 18:22),
and at the same time reject other things that are clearly advocated and justified by their religion, like slavery (Leviticus 25:44), selling your
daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), killing someone who believes in some other god (Deuteronomy 13:7-17), killing those who work on the sabbath
(Exodus 35:2), and killing your kids for talking back to you (Leviticus 20:9 and Exodus 21:17). Where's the consistency in that? Seems like one
should not cherrypick the bible, it should either be accepted in its entirety or rejected in its entirety.
[Edited on 8-19-2010 by Ken Bondy]
carpe diem!
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
what's the big deal about getting married? - Married Filing Jointly on federal tax returns perhaps?
Also:
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&...
DOMA decisions released - Two huge victories for marriage equality.
In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July 8) ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of
the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.
In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel
Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, Tauro considered whether the federal law’s definition of marriage -- one man and one
woman -- violates state sovereignty by treating some couples with Massachusetts’ marriage licenses differently than others. In Gill v. Office of
Personnel Management, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), a gay legal group, asked Tauro to consider whether DOMA violates the right
of eight same-sex couples to equal protection of the law. Both cases were argued, separately, in May, and the decision released today is a relatively
quick turnaround, given that some judges take almost a year to decide cases.
GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto told Tauro that DOMA constitutes a "classic equal protection" violation, by taking one class of married people in
Massachusetts and dividing it into two. One class, she noted, gets federal benefits, the other does not. Just as the federal government cannot take
the word "person" and say it means only Caucasians or only women, said Bonauto, it should not be able to take the word "marriage" and say it means
only heterosexual couples. Bonauto said the government has no reason to withhold the more than 1,000 federal benefits of marriage from same-sex
couples, and noted that a House Judiciary Committee report "explicitly stated the purpose of DOMA was to express moral disapproval of homosexuality."
Maura T. Healey, chief of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division, told Judge Tauro that Section 3 of DOMA -- the section that
limits the definition of marriage for federal benefits to straight couples -- violates the state’s right under the federal constitution to sovereign
authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents. Healey called DOMA an "animus-based national marriage law" that intrudes on core
state authority and "forces the state to discriminate against its own citizens."
Christopher Hall, representing HHS, said Congress should be able to control the meaning of terms, such as "marriage," used in its own statutes, and
should be able to control how federal money is allocated for federal benefits provided to persons based on their marital status. Tauro essentially
replied that the government’s power is not unlimited.
Both Bonauto at GLAD and Healey at the Attorney General’s office urged Tauro to apply heightened scrutiny in considering whether the federal
government had any legitimate need for DOMA. Heightened scrutiny requires the government to come up with a fairly significant reason for treating gay
couples differently under the law. In both cases, however, the judge said that DOMA failed to meet even the most simple judicial review, rational
basis -- in other words, there was no justifiable reason to the federal government to treat same-sex couples.
Both lawsuits are very precise legal attacks against DOMA -- targeting just Section 3 -- and most legal observers believe both cases will eventually
be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for resolution. The only other marriage case right now that has that same potential is the Proposition 8
marriage case in a federal district court in San Francisco. Judge Vaughn Walker heard closing arguments in that case in June and has not yet issued
his decision. The next step for all three cases is the U.S. Court of Appeals.
[Edited on 8-19-2010 by k-rico]
|
|
|
oldlady
Banned
Posts: 1714
Registered: 10-31-2005
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
So just who granted those rights?
[Edited on 8-19-2010 by DianaT] |
No person or government or God. This belief system expressed the idea that we have rights because we are, we exist.
Some of us even have a right to be homophobic, or racist, or bigoted. How we behave/vote will reflect our belief systems.
I don't have an issue with your celebration of the legalization of Gay Marriage. My issue is purely with your intolerance of those who don't share
your world view.
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldlady
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
So just who granted those rights?
[Edited on 8-19-2010 by DianaT] |
No person or government or God. This belief system expressed the idea that we have rights because we are, we exist.
|
Getting a little Zen here.
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldlady
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
So just who granted those rights?
[Edited on 8-19-2010 by DianaT] |
No person or government or God. This belief system expressed the idea that we have rights because we are, we exist.
Some of us even have a right to be homophobic, or racist, or bigoted. How we behave/vote will reflect our belief systems.
I don't have an issue with your celebration of the legalization of Gay Marriage. My issue is purely with your intolerance of those who don't share
your world view. |
Oh heck, many of my friends disagree with me politically all the time---in fact my very best friend for the last 30 years argues with me all the time
over most things politically.
But I am not very tolerant of people who want to act on their belief systems in a way that harms other people and denys them the same rights others
enjoy; the rights that are granted to us by our governement.
And as are all belief systems, the one that claimed we have the rights because we exist was also a creation of human beings.
and yes Wessongroup---money is a very big part of the equation---the right of gay couples to enjoy the benefits you listed, the benefits that are
mandated by law to legally married couples.
Ken, picking and choosing parts of the bible to back one's belief system can be an exercise in fun---it is all there --- what ever you want. 
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
A paradoxical conundrum
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldlady
My issue is purely with your intolerance of those who don't share your world view. |
But I am not very tolerant of people who want to act on their belief systems in a way that harms other people |
Intolerance of the tolerance of the intolerant.
Makes your head spin. 
|
|
|
bajabass
Super Nomad
Posts: 2016
Registered: 10-4-2006
Location: La Paz,BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: Want to fish!!!
|
|
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by wessongroup
Folks it's about money... it really not that complicated...
|
Same sex couples that feel a deep emotional bond and want that bond recognized in the same manner done so by opposite sex couples as a true commitment
to sharing their lives together might argue with you about the importance of the money aspect.
Why be opposed to love and commitment, that's crazy.
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Dave
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldlady
My issue is purely with your intolerance of those who don't share your world view. |
But I am not very tolerant of people who want to act on their belief systems in a way that harms other people |
Intolerance of the tolerance of the intolerant.
Makes your head spin. |
As well it should.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldlady
My issue is purely with your intolerance of those who don't share your world view. |
But I am not very tolerant of people who want to act on their belief systems in a way that harms other people |
You have to be kidding !!!
You are one of the most pugilistic people on this board. You are always involved in some turmoil here. You may be tolerant of belief systems but you
seem to be intolerant of everyone here.
When people don't agree with you, out come the accusations. You basically trash those who don't share your opinion on anything.
If the right uses the fear factor to gain support - you use the shame factor to achieve similar ends.
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldlady
My issue is purely with your intolerance of those who don't share your world view. |
But I am not very tolerant of people who want to act on their belief systems in a way that harms other people |
You have to be kidding !!!
You are one of the most pugilistic people on this board. You are always involved in some turmoil here. You may be tolerant of belief systems but you
seem to be intolerant of everyone here.
When people don't agree with you, out come the accusations. You basically trash those who don't share your opinion on anything.
If the right uses the fear factor to gain support - you use the shame factor to achieve similar ends. |
Igor,
I knew when I disagreed with you over the nature of the government that I was risking the rath of Igor. You really go on the personal attack when one
disagrees with you----it has happened before --- and there were no accusations toward you, not that I can find. But it really is your problem.
I hereby apologize to anyone who feels that I personally unjustly attacked them. Maybe there is a rational reason for wanting to deny a segment of
the population the same civil rights enjoyed by others. Maybe there is a reason that does not involve hate, intolerance, or fear.
If there is a rational reason, someone should state it---I am curious.
But disagreeing about the nature of the government is a very different matter---
[Edited on 8-19-2010 by DianaT]
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sounds like a quid pro quo, if I was to believe your post.
Fear subjugates people. The Bush administration was very skilled in using it as such. Perhaps the (maybe) unintended consequence of what they did is
why, today, we have such a disruptive public debate over almost everything. People want to argue over almost anything, no matter how trivial it may be
when compared to the greater scheme of things.
Guilt, on the other hand, has been a part of Jewish culture for centuries, and co-opted, to be practiced by the Catholics years later.
[Edited on 8-19-2010 by Bajahowodd]
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldlady
My issue is purely with your intolerance of those who don't share your world view. |
I wish I'd said that.
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by k-rico
Why be opposed to love and commitment, that's crazy. |
Who's opposed to that? Let's all love and commit. Do we have to have the government bless this union?
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DENNIS
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldlady
My issue is purely with your intolerance of those who don't share your world view. |
I wish I'd said that. |
It is a very good statement that could be used often in many different situations and with many different people.
Many of us, including me, can get fired up and sound and be very intolerant of other people at times, but maybe there are exceptions----
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
Diane...you here have developed a self-serving quagmire in which you wallow....with glee. This issue will have no resolution here, but the fight
itself is now the issue and you are content with the feeling that there is no one answer. The war will go on.
I think you like that.
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DianaT
It is a very good statement that could be used often in many different situations and with many different people.
|
Focus, please. Stay on point.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5
6
7
8 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
