Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Pain and destruction usually comes (0+ / 0-)

    from choices we make...  how does my holding to the sacred scripture cause anyone pain.

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

    by meknow on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:00:38 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It seems to me (0+ / 0-)

      you want everyone to abide by your definition of sacred.  If it is only respect you want, you are not quite making yourself clear.

      Everyone! Arms akimbo!

      by tobendaro on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:09:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know what you mean... (0+ / 0-)

        can you be a little clearer

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

        by meknow on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:40:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  On holding sacred (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tobendaro, terrypinder, zinger99

          You are asking others to hold something sacred because it is sacred to you.  People here are trying to explain to you that that's not how it works.

          Let's try something less fraught that marriage.  Do you keep kosher?  Do you keep halal?  Those are sacred dietary restrictions in other faiths. I bet you don't follow them. Why?  Because you don't think they're sacred, or important, or probably even sensible. But others do.

          When a mosquito stings you, do you swat it?  Do you know that the Jains might feel concern for the karmic burden of such an action?  Will that even give you a moment's pause the next time you feel one going for your blood?

          Faith is personal.  What you hold sacred is sacred to you, not necessarily to anyone else.  It is not made less sacred -- again, to you -- because others believe differently.  But your faith does not give you the right to demand that others hold sacred the tenets of a faith they do not follow (or, for that matter, one they do).

          "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 09:48:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  please show me where I asked anything but to be (0+ / 0-)

            heard respectfully as you do.  I must have been in a trance when I wrote that please spot it for me...

            I find it giddy that people worship the moon but I am not in their face messing with them...  no call for it...  I have my own beliefs and nothing there tells me that I need to over shout or our argue you.  but dialoguing is permitted.

            You made a good point about the kosher foods...  read what I said above...  But if you read the bible you will see that those laws were for the Jewish people and not gentiles...  so they do not even apply to moi

            if in the presense of a jain i may well ask the to swat it or move on to not be a distraction or problem to him if I may...

            I think you need to go back and read again what I said about a sacred matter.  I do not believe I said or implied forcing what I believe on anyone.  I think my comment was that what I hold sacred is still my opinion and should be respected.  no matter if the opinion is sacred or what catagory it is placed under it is held dear to that person even if it were something grandpa said once when he was on his knee.

            now what is more important I believe that there is truth that stands the test of everything and is truth today and 100,000 years from now.  human beings devise systems and contracts, they are made to be broken it seems.  sometimes not an ounce of truth is found in them sometimes there is a smattering and other times a lot with a smigen of falsehood that taints the whole...

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

            by meknow on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:06:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What you said: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              terrypinder
              why not just go to the core of it the legal process and leave marriage out of it...  why imitate christians?
              Marriage is not exclusive to your religion. You know that, right?

              Sure, people can and do have grandiose weddings in beautiful Catholic churches. They also have Jewish weddings, or Islamic ones. They have Buddhist weddings and Shinto weddings and Hindu ones. People wed the ones they love under the auspices of very likely every faith on Earth. And they can wed without having any religion at all.

              If you want a fact you can take to the bank, it's this: when I proposed, it wasn't -- not even in the slightest -- borne of a desire to imitate your religion.

              You aren't bothered by the fact that you don't keep kosher.  That wasn't meant for you, you say. Here's one of the great truths: the things you think are sacred? They're not meant for everyone either.

              So why does same-sex marriage bother you?  No one is demanding that you marry someone of the same gender.  No one is demanding that your church sanction such ceremonies.  It cannot affect you in the slightest, unless you choose to be affected.

              There is no difference between what you are doing here and a hypothetical Jew arguing that all food must be kosher, because he believes that his own must be.

              "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 01:08:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  who said it was exclusive... (0+ / 0-)

                I just thought that you might want to think out  side the box...  it does not bother me about men marrying men because it is their right.  but what does irk me a little is that you would deny me the right to say that I don't agree with it and put words in my mouth that you seem to not know how to cut and copy to give proof...  

                this is a discussion, I just thought that I could inject my side in it...  I thought free speech was a right that all men have... correct me if I am wrong...  Am I not allowed to disagree with you in a civil manner?

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

                by meknow on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 01:26:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You can, but... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  terrypinder

                  ...here's the thing. There's more to civil discourse than refraining from using harsh language.

                  If you mean to have a civil discussion, and the opinion you further in the discussion is one that, if widely accepted, would yield demonstrable harm for the people you are discussing with, then the burden is on you to provide mutually comprehensible justifications for why you hold that opinion and believe it to be right. If you can't, you're arguing falsely -- or at least being intentionally disruptive for its own sake -- neither of which, of course, is a particularly Christian thing to do.

                  But -- perhaps not surprisingly -- I don't think you're discussing anything in good faith here.  No, you didn't use the word exclusive. But what I blockquoted up there is what you said. And you asked why gays seeking marriage would "imitate [C]hristians".

                  My answer there is simple, but you have missed the point.

                  Christians aren't the only people who marry. To marry is not to imitate Christians (and that setting aside entirely the fact that one can be both Christian and homosexual).

                  "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 01:40:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  It causes pain when one argues that their (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zinger99, terrypinder

      sacred scripture should be codified into public policy and laws, i.e., imposing an interpretation of sacred scripture on those who may not hold that same interpretation.

      You are entitled to hold to your sacred scripture and I respect that.  But they are some (I am not accusing you of this) who wish to impose it on other as the law of the land.  IMO, dangerously close to the establishment of an official religion.

      This is why our Founding Fathers - whose ancestors fled religious persecution in England - wisely decreed the freedom of religion.  It's also why the Constitution - not the Bible - is the supreme law of the land.

      The most violent element in society is ignorance.

      by Mr MadAsHell on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:13:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point mr madAsHell... (0+ / 0-)

        where did the institution of marriage begin...

        I would protest with homosexuals against churches like westboro which is not a church...they are in gross error...
        religion meant a bit more in England up to the 1700s...  the wars they spun is what finally got the monarchys of
        england and france to push for tolerance but the catholic church was a bit too big and tied in to money and power...

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

        by meknow on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 01:52:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Marriage predated Churches. (0+ / 0-)

          Freedom to marry does not mean churches are forced to marry gays - that will remain the decision of each church.

          Under the law, gays who marry should have the same legal rights as straights.  That's what this whole issue is about.

          Unfortunately, everything I've heard in opposition to gay marriage ultimately has a religious basis.  But the Constitution is religion-free, and that's the document that is used.

          To be blunt, the Bible (or the Koran, or the Torah, or any other religious document) is irrelevant here.

          The most violent element in society is ignorance.

          by Mr MadAsHell on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:00:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For the supreme court judges (0+ / 0-)

            but i am not confined to such restrictions...   i am not bothering anyone except giving my opinion as you are giving yours on the same matter...

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

            by meknow on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:10:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site