S.F. Gives finger to Feds, Ok's same sex marriages...

M

mythosx

Guest
Hahaha...Frogs are not homo...That's going down in the books.

In response to chaos turtle, sorry to hear that you feel threatened in any way of your social security. I am ashamed that people who supposedly take on the same religious affiliation as me would purposely try to make your life inconvienent. That's not cool.

You are right in saying there hasn't been a biased report yet. And I do stand by that. Until then anyone can say anything about this matter.

I do disagree however about argueing the point of morality. Morality is part of every being. The fact that you say that we shouldn't argue about morality is part of your moral character. Aethism is a religion, it's just not organized. To force people to argue from an aethistic point of view is just as bad as me tossing Bible quotes around.

In response to Senori, Gender roles and social roles have changed over the ages. Marriage roles haven't yet. Just because many old wordings of marriage do not specify gender roles does not mean they don't exist. It is like Mad Dog's article from 1998. There are no tap symbols on the new lands. Does that mean we can get infinite mana? NO NITWIT! You tap for 1. sorry that was a flashback from teaching a yungin. As I was saying it is pretty fundemental. As far as gender roles are concerned, there are somethings that I have issues with in the changing of gender roles but that's a debate for another time.

In short harrasment bad. Still not voting for gay marriages if it comes up.
 
C

chocobo_cid

Guest
Originally posted by mythosx
It is like Mad Dog's article from 1998. There are no tap symbols on the new lands. Does that mean we can get infinite mana? NO NITWIT! You tap for 1. sorry that was a flashback from teaching a yungin. As I was saying it is pretty fundemental.
Perhaps you have yet to realize the difference between one's beliefs about morality/reality and Magic: the Gethering.

One matters, the other is just a game.
 
T

train

Guest
In short harrasment bad. Still not voting for gay marriages if it comes up.
Are you voting against - or would you be allowing people to make their own choice?...
 
M

mythosx

Guest
Regardless of where the example comes from. The principle is the same. If your not argueing with principles then your just argueing to argue. Voting against....Just like I will keep voting against drug use and so on and so forth.
 
C

chocobo_cid

Guest
Originally posted by mythosx
Regardless of where the example comes from. The principle is the same.
If the rules of games present real life, I can imagine some real nasty interactions with Monopoly.
 
C

Chaos Turtle

Guest
I'm not even a little bit surprised. After all, it was specifically against the law there for homosexual couples to be issued marriage licenses.
 
T

train

Guest
But they didn't state it against the state's constitution, they said the local government couldn't do it in the manner they did...

It'll come down to a big legal war... as it was going to from the start...
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Right, it was more that the governor exceeded his authority. It's a separate legal fight to put same-sex marriages in the state's constitution...
 
C

Chaos Turtle

Guest
My point was that California defines marriage as a union between one man and one women. Unless I've heard incorrectly, that's the reason the court said that San Francisco was out of line.
 
C

conservative_infidel

Guest
Christian dogma founded the country and is explicit throughout founding documents like the Declaration all the way to the Gettysburg Address and beyond--yes?
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Originally posted by conservative_infidel
Christian dogma founded the country and is explicit throughout founding documents like the Declaration all the way to the Gettysburg Address and beyond--yes?
Coherency--no?
 
C

Chaos Turtle

Guest
Dogma is incapable of founding anything.

And the answer is no, it is not explicit by any means.
 
C

conservative_infidel

Guest
Webster's American English Dictionary-

Dogma: Tenet or code of tenets.

Certainly you see the relationship . . . yes? I'm sorry if I've misunderstood, but if you meant something else by the use of the word please post. I see the relationship clear as I have implied. :confused:
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
1. Theology A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See note at doctrine . 3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “ The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present ”

Anyway, I don't see why you think dogma can found anything. I agree with Chaos Turtle here...
 
C

conservative_infidel

Guest
Oversoul,

Thanks. I think it's me that fails to understand the term altogether. I've been scouring dictionaries to try to figure out how to properly use this term.

So far I understand "dogma" to represent a set of political, religious, philosophical or moral beliefs.

Chaos Turtle, please disregard my illitterett post :( .
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Ah, okay. It was a misunderstanding then. Part of me thought that might be the case, but I am never sure about such things...
 
C

Chaos Turtle

Guest
Don't take it all so harshly, infidel. It was a gentle (I thought) verbal jab indicating that dogma, being an intangible, can't actually "found" anything. Something may be founded on the basis of it, but it in and of itself can't do any founding.

Of course I disagree that this country was founded on the basis of Christian dogma, or any other dogma, for that matter. The notion that any one idea or even closely related group of ideas was what this country was founded upon is patently absurd, in my opinion. The circumstances that led to the birth of the nation are far more complex than that, something that idealogues often overlook (willfully, I'm sure).
 
Top