Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That's not the American way. If a person wants to be a legal immigrant as opposed to an illegal immigrant, they have to fill out paperwork. To transfer property, make wills, or do anything a person wants to do, it all requires paperwork.
I think you have gotten confused (or even more confused). Voile was talking about same sex marriage, not illegal aliens. Unless you are implying somehow that there is a connection.
I'm not taking it personal: I'm not even a liberal. However, I do know enough of them to know when someone is making sweeping generalizations about them.
If it's not discriminatory, then what else is a law that certain parts of where determined to disproportionately have a negative effect on particular group of legal American citizens?
They do not equally apply to all. Traditions should be questioned and challenged, because "just the way things are" may not be a good way of doing things, and religion does not equally apply to all.
Quite a few things. Let's start wi e fact that this is not a secular nation. So you can forget the religious aspect. You may disagree but you don't g to enforce your faith's 'rules' for anyone other than people of like mind and doesn't in,dude a good number of the citizens of this country. And as for tradition, it was once tradition to have polyandry or polygamy societies. Are you comfortable with returning to that? Traditions change over time, most often for the better and this is one of those changes.
The do not hold up in court.
You can't base laws on them in a secular country
Those were never the established norms, but aberrations. Just like the one that the court will be making legitimate.
My grandparents did, when they came into this country. Under current laws, since I was born here, I didn't. But I had to fill out paperwork for my marriage. That's the American way.
Not exactly. It is the American way to treat everyone consistently, not identically. Kids get treated one way, criminals get treated another way, immigrants are treated another way. But within their context, all kids and etc.should be treated the same way.
Considering many places have legalized same-sex marriage, and have not had any problems, we can be sure that the effects of fully legalizing same-sex marriage will not result in the destruction of society.
Many villages in Papua New Guinea, as many other parts of the world, contemporary and historic, would disagree with you.
The site lost my initial reply so this is an abbreviated version. As Lincoln so famously made clear America has never (nor should any legal system or moral system) apply equally in all ways. For example all of us are equally subjected to laws concerning driving, but not equally treated in all ways by those laws. Is not an everyone can drive or no one can situation, it is a situation where circumstances like, age, ability, need, and capacity determine whether it is legal to drive. So any argument that all are treated equally by law is a non issue to begin with. No set of laws are applied equally in all ways nor would they be.
So for you, keeping Black Americans in th back of the bus would have been just dandy, non? How about keeping all Japanese in interment camps. Maybe you'd like to add gays, lesbians, and transgender people in the interment camp as well, non? How about we force all people to adhere to your faith. Require that every citizen become Christian? Do you even begin to see how inane this is?
Reminds me of that kid on TV who said he hated anyone who did not like him.
There can be and have been legal norms, however legal norms are not and cannot be without God right. Without God there is no objective quality of "rightness" for any law to reflect. Every legal statute is equally subjective and arbitrary respecting any objective moral fact of the matter. Hitler's laws were no more right or wrong, legitimate or illegitimate as any other societies' without God. The only distinguishing difference is the level of societal acceptance. Without God Hitler's morals are merely less fashionable than they were at one time.
Claiming all moral changes are for the best is ontologically absurd. Not only without God do laws lack any degree of rightness or wrongness but any standard of moral correctness would show that we are not even heading in the right direction. As Nietzsche said: since poets killed God in the 19th century the 20th would be the bloodiest century in history. It was not only the bloodiest it was worse than all previous centuries combined. The legalizing of industrial slaughter of our own species in the womb is not moral progress it is moral insanity. Here is some parts of a poem describing the modern moral mindset.
It doesn't upset me at all because I know you and your kind will never win. The tide has turned and those like me will get the same rights you have. Keep your opinion and shout it from the rooftops if you like. It's not going to change a thing.
How on earth did you get this from anything I said? In fact please show anything I said that results in any conclusion you made.
All right. I do understand how laws are often not applied equally. The current troubles in ferguson and Baltimore should make that clear to about anyone. Otoh, I don't agree it's right. So back to the topic. Do you oppose or not the SSM debate? IMO, marriage is a universal right to any person who is an adult, of sound mind and loves whomever is their partner, meaning that gays, etc, have every right to marry under the auspices of the constitution. What is your view?