Why do YOU have the right to vote on MY rights? (reject, paradise) - Page 29

Victor · #**281** 03-03-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Same-sex couples aren't out to alter the definition of marriage either. We just want what the interracial couples wanted: equal marriage rights.

If you say so.

standing_alone · #**282** 03-03-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Completely disagree and a flat out lie.

Can you explain why it's a "flat out lie?"

Victor · #**283** 03-03-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by standing_alone

Can you explain why it's a "flat out lie?"

Because it is blantantly obvious that early America had Christian morale instituted in it's system. Even if it was secular, it was/has been interpreted through Christian lens. That may **** people off but it is what it is.

pdoel · #**284** 03-03-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor

If you say so.

What a great comeback.

There was a time when it was perfectly acceptable for a 30 year old man to marry a 12 year old girl. There was a time when women were considered property, and were more or less bartered to a husband.

There was a time when it was illegal for a black and a white to marry. There was a time when it was wrong for someone of one religion to marry someone of a different religion.

If these are all "different" definitions of marriage, then why is homosexuality any different?

At the very core, a marriage is a committment between two people. That's the basis of a marriage. I don't understand why, over thousands of years, marriage has gone from an Earthly institution, to a religious one, to one of convenience (at times), one allowing people of different faiths, one allowing people of different races, etc.

Yet, you are saying that homosexuals are now trying to redefine marriage.

Please.

Victor · #**285** 03-03-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdoel

What a great comeback.

There was a time when it was perfectly acceptable for a 30 year old man to marry a 12 year old girl. There was a time when women were considered property, and were more or less bartered to a husband.

There was a time when it was illegal for a black and a white to marry. There was a time when it was wrong for someone of one religion to marry someone of a different religion.

If these are all "different" definitions of marriage, then why is homosexuality any different?

At the very core, a marriage is a committment between two people. That's the basis of a marriage. I don't understand why, over thousands of years, marriage has gone from an Earthly institution, to a religious one, to one of convenience (at times), one allowing people of different faiths, one allowing people of different races, etc.

Yet, you are saying that homosexuals are now trying to redefine marriage.

Please.

It wasn't intended as a comeback I just don't buy it. I do not believe this is solely a civil rights issue. Sorry, but it's obvious to me that it's more then that. Painting it as a civil rights movement was simply the quickest way to get it done. Why else do you think others aren't willing to "agree to disagree" with me if this is simply a civil rights issues. Rrrrrrrrright.

Bright-ness' Shadow · #**286** 03-03-2006, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor

Because it is blantantly obvious that early America had Christian morale instituted in it's system. Even if it was secular, it was/has been interpreted through Christian lens. That may **** people off but it is what it is.

You'll have to prove that Christian morality and not some humanistic morality was present in early secular law.

We all know the faults of some Christian interpreation - prohibition, slavery, criminalization of sodomy, supression of the women's vote, massacre of Native Americans, the Salem Witch Trials etc., ect. It is unreliable for the truth of social justice.

Victor · #**287** 03-03-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pah

You'll have to prove that Christian morality and not some humanistic morality was present in early secular law.

We all know the faults of some Christian interpreation - prohibition, slavery, criminalization of sodomy, supression of the women's vote, massacre of Native Americans, the Salem Witch Trials etc., ect. It is unreliable for the truth of social justice.

No thanks. That is quite a task. Talked to enough professors and others in the field to to be content my conclusion. I think lilthu did fine here.

Bright-ness' Shadow · #**288** 03-03-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pah

According to John Rawls, The Theory of Justice, the common good does not have a religious morality but one of it's own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor

Completely disagree and a flat out lie.

You've read the book? I'm sure you're not saying the lie is from me so it must be someone else, perhaps Rawls, that is lying. But then you would have to call those he referenced liars as well if it is Rawls. Sounds like a conspiracy of scholars is being formed.

Victor · #**289** 03-03-2006, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pah

You've read the book? I'm sure you're not saying the lie is from me so it must be someone else, perhaps Rawls, that is lying. But then you would have to call those he referenced liars as well if it is Rawls. Sounds like a conspiracy of scholars is being formed.

I didn't know Rawls was the consensus of scholars.

If Rawls is the one that said it then I apply it to him, not you.