Bridgewater State Univ Student, Attacked For Gay Marriage Ed

What Dem platforms seek to restrict freedoms of individuals, Fred? None that I know of. However, the Reps do believe its their right - DUTY even, to control others.

I just gave you an example. Clinton signing into law the Defense Of Marriage act. Think that restricts the freedom of homosexuals to marry? I do.

FredHayek wrote: I just gave you an example. Clinton signing into law the Defense Of Marriage act. Think that restricts the freedom of homosexuals to marry? I do.

Oh but he was pushed by Republicans and was too weak to make a stand for his priciples...right lefties?

CritiKalbILL wrote:

FredHayek wrote: I just gave you an example. Clinton signing into law the Defense Of Marriage act. Think that restricts the freedom of homosexuals to marry? I do.

Oh but he was pushed by Republicans and was too weak to make a stand for his priciples...right lefties?

Yeah, kind of like Bush signing the TARP act; and the auto-bailout, and.....

And Obama had an opportunity to repeal DOMA when he had carte blanche in 2008 & 2009, but he didn't. Instead, he took the wimpy way out, his administration will no longer defend it.

He was too busy killing Osama bin Laden, and passing the Affordable Health Care Act ...

Affordable Health Care Act? Affordable? Even his bills are lies.

Yeah, like the so-called "Patriot Act"

plaidvillain wrote: Interesting, PS, that you make comments about staying out of other folks' business, but support a party and ideology that is all about controlling others and telling them which decisions they may or may not make themselves. Conservatives say they support personal freedom and liberty, but want to control who you can marry, when you can divorce...based upon theie personal religious mythology. Then, when someone points out their bigotry, they feign victimhood! What's the matter, PS? Don't want anyone to oppress your ability to oppress others? "Hypocrite" seems quite appropriate here. So does that give you justifiable excuse to assault me?

Your analogy to the use of the "N" word is erroneous logic, and stinks. You really think pointing out bigotry is somehow equated to the oppression and pain associated with that word?

That's a nice accusation PV, but like most "progressive" nonsense, it is also erroneous. Having a government say that the civil recognition of the contract willingly entered into by two members of the same sex is marriage will not change the definition of what being married is. It might make you feel better, but it will not do a single thing to alter the thoughts of others. Homosexuals will never be married, regardless of what the official government language is, in the minds of the majority of the populace because their religious beliefs lie in direct opposition to it. That, my friend, is a simple statement of fact. Nothing more, nothing less. Rather than pretend, why not simply address what the issue is and leave aside that which it is not. What the issue is about is to have the government which homosexuals and heterosexuals are living under grant the same legal status to contract willingly entered into by two individuals regardless of the sex of those involved, which will also be expanded to include a greater number of people involved eventually. That is the core of the issue.

Two homosexuals who were married in Vermont can tell me they are married all they wish, but it doesn't alter what my response to hearing that is. Know what that will be? No you're not, marriage is a sacrament, not a piece of paper issued by the government. I say the same about heterosexuals who have divorced and remarried. What they are talking about is the legal status of the contract between them as recognized by the government and it is not the government which tells me what marriage is or is not. Got the picture now? What the government does is recognize the legal status of a contractual agreement entered into by two or more individuals. Whether that contract is a mortgage, a corporation, a purchase agreement for a piece of equipment or an automobile, or a "marriage" it is nothing more, or nothing less, than the recognition of a legally binding contract willingly entered into between two or more parties - and I agree that homosexuals should have that same legal access as heterosexuals do and that, from the legal perspective, if 3 or more individuals wish to bind themselves into the same contractual obligations that they too should have the legal right to do so. The government does not, and cannot, define what marriage is or is not, all it may do is grant or refuse to grant a recognition of the validity of the contract between the two people involved. It is a legal contract issue with regards to the government - nothing more and nothing less. The laws of the government do not obligate religious institutions to recognize what their laws do not. Two homosexuals will never be recognized by the Catholic Church as "married" anymore than it must recognize that a divorced and remarried individual is divorced. The canon law of the religion is supreme in this arena and what determines who is married and who is divorced, not the secular law. That is simply the way things work in this union and a politically and ideologically driven agenda has no power to alter this reality.

Now, we can either work together to bring the same legal recognition for a contract between two homosexuals as that for two heterosexuals and call them all civil unions if you'd like. That is something I am willing to do. I am not, however, willing to pretend that I will recognize a civil contract between two homosexuals as a marriage, nor am I willing to pretend that a legal contract between 3 or more individuals is equally a marriage. It goes against what I believe to be true PV - it is just that simple. I am not willing to pretend otherwise because that would also be a violation of what I believe to be right and true - it would be a putting on of airs and a very disingenuous, deceitful act on my part - which places me into a state of separation between myself and my Creator. If you ask me to support something which proclaims homosexuals are married, I simply am unable to oblige you for this reason. I can support having the government recognize all contractual unions in the civil laws and am more than willing to do so - but in order to gain that support what is being sought must be a declaration that what is being recognized by the government is called what it is - a civil union. I'm good with calling every union recognized by the civil laws as civil unions - that doesn't create a conflict with the laws of my religion - asking me to call them all marriages does. Marriage has a very specific meaning in the laws of the Church and it is that definition which is supreme - the laws of man are not now, nor will they ever be, superior to the laws of my Creator.

plaidvillain wrote: What Dem platforms seek to restrict freedoms of individuals, Fred? None that I know of. However, the Reps do believe its their right - DUTY even, to control others.

We can start with the Patient Affordability and Care Act that restricts the freedom for one to decide for themselves whether or not to purchase health insurance, what insurance they wish to purchase and punishes them for not participating in commerce of the general government's choosing. We can move along to restricting the freedom to associate with those one wishes to associate with. We can then talk about restricting the individual freedom of the owner of a business to hire whomever they wish. We can talk about restricting the freedom to grow food to feed one's own family. We can talk about any number of platforms supported by the party of Democrats which seek to limit individual freedom and subjugate individual to the whims of the general government.

I would like to see what you assert is a GOP attempt to control others PV. What I think such a list will clearly show is that rather than attempting to control others, the platforms are crafted to protect individual freedom and thought from being dictated by others. Now, your particular view of the world may lead you to believe such is not the case, but my particular view of the world might not be the same as yours - which means nothing more, or less, than we have different beliefs on a certain matter. In the case of homosexual marriage, for instance, I think I have shown why my opposition is not bigotry at all, though one who is intolerant of the religion of others may still attempt to label it as such. I have shown how it is possible to work together to achieve a desired goal that respects the diversity of our opinions, but what I expect to find is an adherence to the dogma that nothing less than recognition for homosexuals as married will be tolerated or accepted. Who, then, is the one looking to expand individual freedom and who is looking to limit it? Must the expansion for legal recognition of a contractual state between two homosexuals come at the expense of my individual freedom to have a view diverse from your own?

And you can't possibly imagine how much I don't care what the Catholic church thinks about anything since the Catholic church, as far as I'm concerned, is a pedophile-supporting corrupt bunch of bigots that have no relevance.

So, great...You don't recognize gay marriage and I don't recognize your bullsh*t church.