Federal judge rules that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional
- Thread starter Brubricker
- Start date
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
yeah, they say abortion, gay marriage and other things should be illegal because of public opinions
Immanuel
Gold Member
- May 15, 2007
- 16,828
- 2,269
- 183
yeah, they say abortion, gay marriage and other things should be illegal because of public opinions
I used to say abortion should be illegal, but then after thinking about it and realizing that making it illegal would solve nothing, I changed my pov. Personally, I, like the vast majority of human beings both pro-life and pro-choice, would like to see abortion be extremely rare (I'd use "safe, legal and rare") but that has been adopted by people who don't like me. The more rare the better. That will not be accomplished by over-turning Roe v. Wade. Education and changing the minds of people is the only way I can see to accomplish that goal.
As to Gay Marriage, my opinion on that has changed as well. I used to be ambivalent. Then when I started listening to intelligent gay people on sites like this one and their arguments, I began to realize that they had a point, it was not up to the government to discriminate against them. I do not believe the government should force churches to ordain gay people or to marry them, but I do believe that churches that have come to grips with this issue should be allowed to do so while churches (such as my own*) that have not should be free to remain as they are so long as they do not persecute.
Bodecea stated she was married in a church. I don't understand where she gets the idea that I have a problem with that as I have not stated that I did.
Other issues? Not sure where to go with that one since I don't know what those issues are in your mind.
Immie
* My church is not perfect. There are a few things that I would like to see changed. I can't say that ordaining homosexuals or marrying them is one of those things, but I do recognize that neither the organized church to which I belong nor I are perfect.
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
yeah, they say abortion, gay marriage and other things should be illegal because of public opinions
I used to say abortion should be illegal, but then after thinking about it and realizing that making it illegal would solve nothing, I changed my pov. Personally, I, like the vast majority of human beings both pro-life and pro-choice, would like to see abortion be extremely rare (I'd use "safe, legal and rare") but that has been adopted by people who don't like me. The more rare the better. That will not be accomplished by over-turning Roe v. Wade. Education and changing the minds of people is the only way I can see to accomplish that goal.
As to Gay Marriage, my opinion on that has changed as well. I used to be ambivalent. Then when I started listening to intelligent gay people on sites like this one and their arguments, I began to realize that they had a point, it was not up to the government to discriminate against them. I do not believe the government should force churches to ordain gay people or to marry them, but I do believe that churches that have come to grips with this issue should be allowed to do so while churches (such as my own*) that have not should be free to remain as they are so long as they do not persecute.
Bodecea stated she was married in a church. I don't understand where she gets the idea that I have a problem with that as I have not stated that I did.
Other issues? Not sure where to go with that one since I don't know what those issues are in your mind.
Immie
* My church is not perfect. There are a few things that I would like to see changed. I can't say that ordaining homosexuals or marrying them is one of those things, but I do recognize that neither the organized church to which I belong nor I are perfect.
I apologize for misunderstanding you on some levels, yet you raise more questions than you answer.
---
If your opposition to abortion was faith based (I have a view that many times it's much more complicated and people hide behind faith in order to cover up unconscious urges and feels in regards others and their personal choices), it seems odd that you would go and drop the position you held just because of the reality on the ground -- that banning it, making it illegal, solves very few if any issues.
The marriage debate, as a legal issue, has gotten my attention. I lived in Massachusetts when Marshall handed down the state Court's decision. I understand the arguments on all sides. What I have an issue with is the debate over words, terms, meanings: marriage/civil union.
The state already recognizes civil unions. A civil ceremony is called a marriage for the purposes of civil statutes and benefits and the census and...on...and...on...all because the government is a civil arm of society. Marriage is not a religious term. While religions may define what constitutes a marriage for the purposes of faith, religions do not get to define what terms mean in the greater society -- in the civil sphere.
I personally consider the compromise of civil unions for all, or the state out of marriages to be unacceptable, but that may be just what is needed to keep society from going over a cliff -- compromise. But what is in the best interests of political partisans is not what is in the best interests of society as a whole.
Immanuel
Gold Member
- May 15, 2007
- 16,828
- 2,269
- 183
You are way off based.
The "we're all sinners" was included in the first comment I made to you about it.
I know it and you know it.
I have absolutely no problem with your church or your marriage. There was no "shot" intended on my part.
By the way: What shot was that?
Immie
Immanuel
Gold Member
- May 15, 2007
- 16,828
- 2,269
- 183
yeah, they say abortion, gay marriage and other things should be illegal because of public opinions
I used to say abortion should be illegal, but then after thinking about it and realizing that making it illegal would solve nothing, I changed my pov. Personally, I, like the vast majority of human beings both pro-life and pro-choice, would like to see abortion be extremely rare (I'd use "safe, legal and rare") but that has been adopted by people who don't like me. The more rare the better. That will not be accomplished by over-turning Roe v. Wade. Education and changing the minds of people is the only way I can see to accomplish that goal.
As to Gay Marriage, my opinion on that has changed as well. I used to be ambivalent. Then when I started listening to intelligent gay people on sites like this one and their arguments, I began to realize that they had a point, it was not up to the government to discriminate against them. I do not believe the government should force churches to ordain gay people or to marry them, but I do believe that churches that have come to grips with this issue should be allowed to do so while churches (such as my own*) that have not should be free to remain as they are so long as they do not persecute.
Bodecea stated she was married in a church. I don't understand where she gets the idea that I have a problem with that as I have not stated that I did.
Other issues? Not sure where to go with that one since I don't know what those issues are in your mind.
Immie
* My church is not perfect. There are a few things that I would like to see changed. I can't say that ordaining homosexuals or marrying them is one of those things, but I do recognize that neither the organized church to which I belong nor I are perfect.
I apologize for misunderstanding you on some levels, yet you raise more questions than you answer.
---
If your opposition to abortion was faith based (I have a view that many times it's much more complicated and people hide behind faith in order to cover up unconscious urges and feels in regards others and their personal choices), it seems odd that you would go and drop the position you held just because of the reality on the ground -- that banning it, making it illegal, solves very few if any issues.
My opposition is faith based. What is the goal, to win some contest and to get abortion banned or to save lives: the lives of the babies AND the lives of the mothers? My belief is that the lives of both mother and baby are valuable and need to be protected. Winning the debate over abortion is not going to save one life unless we change the hearts of mothers first.
My belief is that the best way to solve this problem is to create civil unions for all. After all, that is basically what we have now. Therefore, rather than call it "marriage" call it civil unions instead and then allow churches, such as Bodecea's church to sanction marriage within their congregations. If the state would allow "gay marriage" that is basically what would happen anyway.
However, under no circumstances do I believe that the state should force the Catholic Church to perform marriage ceremonies that are against their beliefs.
Immie
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
I must say your position on abortion, while being faith based, is very sophisticated and supportable. You can have you religious based beliefs and still not infringe upon others with force of the state.
you have done something rare here. You've earned my respect in only a few short posts. I did help though, I bothered to listen tow hat you are saying instead of focusing on your personality or the caricature of those who often take your position.
The state would never try and force the Catholic Church or any other church to do something. The state may take away tax payer funds because the churches are in violation of state was or regulations. That is a different issue.
Maybe the churches need to stop accepting tax payer funds, even stop accepting non profit status. Maybe it is time for the churches to stand on their own.
The gay marriage opposition from the churches is bigotry masked with compassion.
Roman Catholic Bishop Lynch, of South Carolina, during the Civil War, was a spokesman for the Confederacy. One of Lynch's personal beliefs was that Negro slaves would be like children without support---free yet lost---so slavery was better. He was right about former slaves being thrown out into the cold. But his beliefs were based on bigotry.
"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops." -an old saying I learned from seminarians
btw, Lynch was exiled in Europe when the war ended. He was granted some kind of amnesty and came back to SC and started the first organizations that helped the freed slaves. )a good man with a good heart and a head full of bigotry)
Immanuel
Gold Member
- May 15, 2007
- 16,828
- 2,269
- 183
I must say your position on abortion, while being faith based, is very sophisticated and supportable. You can have you religious based beliefs and still not infringe upon others with force of the state.
you have done something rare here. You've earned my respect in only a few short posts. I did help though, I bothered to listen tow hat you are saying instead of focusing on your personality or the caricature of those who often take your position.
The state would never try and force the Catholic Church or any other church to do something. The state may take away tax payer funds because the churches are in violation of state was or regulations. That is a different issue.
Maybe the churches need to stop accepting tax payer funds, even stop accepting non profit status. Maybe it is time for the churches to stand on their own.
The gay marriage opposition from the churches is bigotry masked with compassion.
Roman Catholic Bishop Lynch, of South Carolina, during the Civil War, was a spokesman for the Confederacy. One of Lynch's personal beliefs was that Negro slaves would be like children without support---free yet lost---so slavery was better. He was right about former slaves being thrown out into the cold. But his beliefs were based on bigotry.
"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops." -an old saying I learned from seminarians
btw, Lynch was exiled in Europe when the war ended. He was granted some kind of amnesty and came back to SC and started the first organizations that helped the freed slaves. )a good man with a good heart and a head full of bigotry)
Since my comment is based solely on the below quote, I am pulling it out.
I find this hard to agree with because I don't see this opposition as being "masked with compassion". For a church to profess its love for all human beings but then to state that some human beings (I will use the homosexual community as an example) are not welcome until they repent just seems outrageous to me. Why would someone "repent" to become just like someone that obviously despises them.
My belief is that the church should throw its doors open to even the worst sinners as Christ did for the Apostle Paul and then share the Law and the Gospel with them The Law that states that they are sinners followed by the Gospel that proclaims that freedom from those sins is available through the Blood of Christ. It seems to me to defeat the purpose of the church to exclude people that the church sees as sinners or should I say those who are openly sinners because we are all sinners.
True compassion would be to welcome those in the homosexual community who profess faith in Jesus Christ as brothers and sisters and then where necessary help them to strengthen their faith. I know that there are biblical passages that some who are more Theologically versed than I am would use to dispute that, but that is how I feel.
My own church is guilty of the above. I don't agree with all of its dogma, but I am closer doctrinally to it than others I have found.
Immie
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
Mother Church has compassion. It's compassion masks much. It's compassion for sinners is what had Bishops trying to help the pederasts. The goal was good. The church just forgot that protecting itself was an act that caused it to lose compassion for future victims.
Compassion is a good thing, but like they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
--
gotta run
Compassion is a good thing, but like they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
--
gotta run
- Moderator
- #91
- Moderator
- #92
So you're calling PJ a dope after you thanked him for posting a poll?
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
So you're calling PJ a dope after you thanked him for posting a poll?
pay attention, and maybe you'll get IT.
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
Lookie here everyone!!!!!! Tazzie has learned a new phrase.
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
I still like this ruling. It can be applied to many federal laws
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
You act like the ruling covers new ground. It doesn't. Each federal or state law would be argued on a case by case basis with different arguments. I doubt there will be as many stupid laws as DOMA in the future, unless of course the culture warriors get to guide the debates again. Clinton and others had second thoughts after backing this abortion.
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
On the surface it would appear that way as it does with don't ask don't tell, but bad policy makes for shitty results and bad laws makes for bad policy.
I give Clinton some Dems and some Republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to having their motivations questioned on things like DOMA.
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #100
It's funny how people who bitch about protecting "marraige" have not had a problem with DOMA not preventing legalized pedophilia in the form of a 50 year old fuck up marrying a 14 year old. Marriage has never had a single definition.
Anyways, I disagree with the judge in that in seems to violate the 14th as much if not more than the 10th.
Anyways, I disagree with the judge in that in seems to violate the 14th as much if not more than the 10th.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Biden Admin Ignored Covid ‘Vaccine’ Risks While Pushing Mandates, Secret Docs Show- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 0
-
