Skip to main content

View Diary: Let the tea-leaf reading commence: Supreme Court hears arguments on marriage equality (153 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you are either truly ignorant (6+ / 0-)

    or willfully right wing and a bigot.

    First, your comment about panties is unwarranted and imflammatory.  

    Second, it is called a "marriage" in civil law.  It is a civil contract conferring rights and responsibilities on the parties.

    It is the religious nuts who have twisted the argument by claiming that allowing civil legal marriage will somehow"force" an individual church to perform a ceremony.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

    •  forgive me for the offense... (0+ / 0-)

      then fight for your rights and don't try belittle my opinion... you want respect give it...

      I am a Christian...  but I can't stop you from doing anything... if God gives you that right how can I stop you...  but I have the right to oppose what I think is not healthy or right as do you...  i give that right to you...  why do you go right wing on me

      I may not be deep, but I am very wide... Honree Balzac

      by meknow on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:55:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you understand (4+ / 0-)

        ...that allowing people to marry in a manner that is not in accord with the terms of your personal religious beliefs does not prevent you in any way from marrying in accord with the terms of your personal religious beliefs?

        Or, failing that argument, that lots of people can already marry who don't care at all about what the Christian faith says about their relationship.  Do those marriages weaken yours?  Do they weaken your faith in the institution?

        I posted a more pointed question for you a bit up the thread.  You should consider trying to respond to it.

        "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -Douglas Adams

        by Serpents Choice on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:36:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  first of all (0+ / 0-)

          Thanks for asking...

          now how can I allow or disallow anyone anything...  people are free to do what ever they please.  I may object in some manner and on religious terms or some other but it is your right.  So don't try and tell me I am impeding you from any right.  Nah tru!!!

          Nothing you do weakens my being except maybe a physical beatdown.  but hardly anything you will do will take butter off my slice of bread...  Your stance on christainty does not, as you say weaken the institution of it...I have said several times today that even God does not impede you choice...  

          I may not be deep, but I am very wide... Honree Balzac

          by meknow on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:52:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But then why take the stance you do (0+ / 0-)

            If you are not harmed, why inflict harm on others?  The Bible itself says that, of the virtues, love is the greatest of these.

            Why would you, then, say that because a union born of love would not be sacred to your faith, that it should not be permitted to happen -- even (or especially) for those who do not share in your beliefs?

            "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -Douglas Adams

            by Serpents Choice on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:32:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you don't want to go into the bible on this do you (0+ / 0-)

              love is the covering fact that takes in the whole of the law...  even enemies are to be loved, those who use you and transgresser of the law...  I have not said anything about hate...  why do you question my love walk because I don't agree wtih the practice of homosexuality...?

              I may not be deep, but I am very wide... Honree Balzac

              by meknow on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 01:34:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  utter nonsense and doublespeak (0+ / 0-)
      •  you certainly have a right to your (4+ / 0-)

        views but I was commenting on how you don't understand the law and the facts about marriage.  You still have not responded to any of the salient issues.  You keep repeating the same thing without addressing anything.

        •  without addressing what you what me to address (0+ / 0-)

          What laws don't i understand?  what facts?  As far as what I have commented on being salient, I believe they pertain to the argument primarily.  Why go to 6 when 2 is not satisfied?

          An old preacher preached the same sermon every Sunday for several months.  Finally one of the deacons came to him and told him that he maybe needed to study his bible a bit more because there was more than just that one subject in there.

          He said to the deacon, why go to another subject when you have not learned this one?

          Lawyers love to move all over the place when they don't feel it...

          I may not be deep, but I am very wide... Honree Balzac

          by meknow on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:37:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I will try this again (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DSPS owl

            You said why don't gay people just give up on marriage since churches object.

            I pointed out that marriage is a civil contract governed by the state.  What does the preacher say ?

            "By the power vested in me by the state"

            Now, the marriage contract, licensed by the state, is a legal contract with rights and responsibilities.

            churches perform ceremonies, but without a legal marriage license there are no legal rights or responsibilities conferred.

            Now churches and religious people want to deny legal rights to some people because their particular religion does not condone same sex marriage.  Well too bad. No one will force a church to do anything.  But the churches should not be able to dictate what the govt does in terms of granting a marriage license and a legal marriage contract.

            not once have you attempted to respond to these fundamental points.

            •  I responded to what the real issue is in one of my (0+ / 0-)

              first posts, the legality of being able to recieve benefits and other legalities.  heck gays have been living with each other since and before sodom and the other place.  you are not listening...

              I am not  trying to stop anything... i am here on KOS talking to you not standing in front of the SC protesting...  the government has the case and will rule...

              will you copy and paste the next charge or I will take you to court for lying (smile) come on lets keep it real...  somewhere the truth will pop up but lies are evident...  

              I may not be deep, but I am very wide... Honree Balzac

              by meknow on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 01:41:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  consider this - do you recall the (0+ / 0-)

                "religious" arguments in the 1950s and 60s that lead to Loving v Virginia, that lead to the overturning of state laws outlawing "interracial" marriage?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site