The bolded part you quoted does not mean that marriage had to be defined ONLY between a man and a woman. It means that both, men and women, have equal rights to choose whom they want to marry -- that means marrying a person of opposite gender, or person of same gender.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!
Collapse
X
-
Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
-
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The absence of sexual orientation is conspicuous.
It was actually left out of the Canadian Charter on purpose then read in by the courts."I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This could mean a bunch of things.
1. You are closeminded, and even if I have an open mind, you percieve my disagreement to be closeminded on my part.
2. You are close minded, and correctly percieve me to be closeminded, without recognising your own state.
3. You are open minded, and correctly perceive me to be closeminded.
Why is 3 more likely then 1 or 2?"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It says men and women. If it said this, then they would say, without regard to race, sexual orientation, etc, which it does not. The absence of sexual orientation is conspicuous."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Comment
-
If you're going to be that literal about it, you might as well say that "men and women" implies that only group marriage (two or more of each gender) is a right. It doesn't say "one man and one woman," after all, it says "men and women."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok
If you're going to be that literal about it, you might as well say that "men and women" implies that only group marriage (two or more of each gender) is a right. It doesn't say "one man and one woman," after all, it says "men and women."
Polygamists win!!“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How do you propose to do that?
Obviously not. I did say between gay marriage and population control. I would be very surprised to find any person who agreed with gay marriage and did not also agree with population control.
Do you agree with me that the two views are most often found hand in hand with one another?
I believe all people ought to be enfranchised. The right to vote is an individual right.
So how does this support your argument? In fact, it rejects your argument here. You cannot appeal to the code and at the same time say that it says something which it does not.Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It says men and women. If it said this, then they would say, without regard to race, sexual orientation, etc, which it does not. The absence of sexual orientation is conspicuous.Last edited by Cyclotron; May 15, 2008, 23:04.Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Comment
-
In many societies around the world, men's rights differ substantially from women's rights when it comes to marriage
Yep... just look at the rights on divorce for men and the differences in those for women in the Islamic world.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
Incredible as it sounds, gay rights was not on an issue on anybody's radar in 1948. It's preposterous to think that its omission was a result of anything other than that.
Again, that doesn't get you to where you need to be. If they didn't have gay rights in mind, why would they write the thing to approve of gay rights. Clearly they intended to be for men and women only.
Nice try.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Because you are the one forbidding, I am the one permitting. Pretty basic.
Totally wide open about everything obviously, including the benefits of religion.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Well, all he was really doing was rebutting your assertion that marriage isn't an individual right. After that is established, then equal protection can come back into play.
And, of course, countries have interpreted the UNDHR to protect gay marriages... it be a living document too .“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
Education, which has a compelling inverse relationship with population growth rates. I appreciate you taking the time to ask me that, though it was only after a hilariously stupid strawman argument.
If they are, it's your own fault. Gay people are not automatically liberals.
If the Republican party didn't obstruct their equal rights, the correlation wouldn't exist - just look at the values of Black people in America, which are often quite conservative, and yet they vote overwhelmingly Democratic. There is nothing intrinsically connective between views on gay rights and views on population.
I would argue they are. The whole concept of the word 'breeder' is an excellent conjuction of both ideals. It would make sense for a population controller to elevate gay people above the breeders, as this would accomplish several ends at the same time.
I would be intrigued in anyone who supported gay rights, who also was against the population control movement, I've not seen anyone who was for one and against the other.
The right to vote is not the only meaning of "enfranchised.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Let me put this another way Imran. You have the right to pursue happiness. You have the right to pursue marriage. You have the right to pursue a family. But you do not have the right to a marriage and a family.
Does this make sense? This is why it is called the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to happiness, merely to pursue.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
Comment