glassjester
Well-known member
Right. It's a non-issue.
Gay Catholics Push for Church Weddings
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Right. It's a non-issue.
So modern dogma is better that oppress the views of others you don't agree with?
glassjester
Well-known member
Isn't that the progressive mantra? The newest idea is the truest idea.
Quetzal
New member
In regards to homosexuals, the view I uphold and fight for is the liberation of homosexuals from social and legal oppression. If your view is that they should continue to be oppressed, I will contest it every time. I understand you are trying to highlight the logical contradiction: "You are trying to oppress the views of others who oppress." I get it, I understand that point of view. It doesn't mean that I am going to stop.
Quetzal
New member
It is true, social progress and equality usually takes place over time. Thus, making newer ideas more true than older ones.
HisServant
New member
Most new ideas we have are destroying us... its ripping apart the very fabric of what defines a safe and cohesive society.
The 'new' idea of running our country off of debt is going to smash us.
The 'new' idea of letting public employees unionize is going to bankrupt the public.
The 'new' idea that somehow the government is responsible for us is going to bankrupt us morally and financially.
The 'new' idea that the constitution requires that we socially treat everyone the same is destined to lead to war and riots.
Quetzal
New member
These are all valid predictions, but still predictions none the less. Each of those is a thread to themselves and only one of them is relevant to our discussion. But I am curious... how would treating everyone equally and fairly lead to war and riots?
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes, progress is change and change is progress.
I like my reasoning like I like my pizza.
HisServant
New member
Because it will inevitably lead to certain groups of people being treated 'more fairly' than others because what is perceived as their persecution in the past. The majority that is paying the bill will only stand for it for just so long then riot.
Quetzal
New member
Paying the bill? In what way? By who? By how much? More fairly, who and how? Are you suggesting we continue a system of oppression?
TracerBullet
New member
Our country has been in debt since it's inception. in 1790 the infant United States was 75 million in debt. In terms of GPD and modern money that debt was about the equivalent of the debt this country had in 1984
When unions were at the height of their power and had the greatest number of workers enrolled (roughly the 1960's) also happens to be the most prosperous times in our countries history
It's not medicaid or unemployment that is driving the national debt.
that "new" idea has been part of the constitution for 160 years
Quetzal
New member
Don't confuse him with facts.
In other words your Teflon coating precludes any differing thoughts from taking hold?
Just who is oppressing whom?
Quetzal
New member
Previous to the SCOTUS ruling conservative political parties and activist groups were attempting to withhold legal rights to LGBT minorities.
Fair - get another baker/photographer/caterer/florist, instead of forcing one who doesn't agree with you to do it.
The mere fact that one would insist on such shows clearly it isnt really about a wedding to them, because someone truely joyous in getting married, want the best possible services that wont come from one who doesnt agree with you.
As far as the op, its not about wanting a catholic church wedding, its about trying to force acceptance.
Let me give you a hint, whatever you force, you are just getting lip service, you cant make others agree. Empty victory.
HisServant
New member
What rights were they withholding?
If the SCOTUS had done the right thing, they would have invalidated all government involvement in marriage and removed all benefits of it. It works against the constitution which gives INDIVIDUALS rights... marriage TAKES AWAY rights and responsibilities that should be required of every citizen.
As far as the handling of assets, etc... it should be handled by civil contracts and should NOT BE UNIFORM. People should have the right to agree to what they want without tortuous interference from the government.
As far as all other parts of government, LGTB people have the exact same protection from the federal and state governments as everyone else.
The constitution does not require that individuals treat other individuals equally... nor should it. It requires government to treat INDIVIDUALS equally... which is good.
opcorn:
Quetzal
New member
The right to get married and all legal benefits that go with it.
By the way, are you going to continue to ignore my other questions/posts?
and
Don't worry, I'll wait.
Quetzal
New member
I agree, if a business does not want to carry out a service and there is another service provider willing to provide that same service, there really isn't much of an argument. It is just a poor business choice, in my opinion.
HisServant
New member
1.) No, a phased in approach so that all bases are covered and loopholes are closed is a much better way to implement this type of huge change.
2.) All concepts... abstracts have a human and monetary cost in implementation... and they must be weighted and measured.
Blacks are still paying the penalty for being freed the way they were... Lincoln is viewed as the great emancipator but all he did was ensure the blacks would be poor for hundreds of years and that racism would get much worse over time.
Racism became 10x worse after the civil war, FYI.
Sometimes even the best of ideas need to be tempered and moderated in their implementation... just flicking a switch is horrible public policy.