GreyWolfLord, I'm not trying to pry but what are the beliefs/sexuality/whatever you have that you face such discrimination for and fear you would be discriminated for here?
I wasn't going to ask but you keep referring to it without spelling it out and now I'm curious!
I'll send you a PM, I'm not comfortable discussing such things on the public forums.
I'll send you a PM, I'm not comfortable discussing such things on the public forums.GreyWolfLord, I'm not trying to pry but what are the beliefs/sexuality/whatever you have that you face such discrimination for and fear you would be discriminated for here?
I wasn't going to ask but you keep referring to it without spelling it out and now I'm curious!
Ok, thanks. Sorry, I'm not trying to embarrass you, I'm just always curious about people.
Congratulations to all the folk of the fabulous persuasion!
I'm a staunch Catholic who can't stand the imposition of my personal and my church's morality on those who don't share it. On sites like this, I'm a screwball theist, and on Catholic websites, I'm one of Satan's middle managers for not upholding the party line. Funny how much is relative, ain't it?
I think the decision is the only one that can be made by those who are not allowing inappropriate influences to sway them. The separation of church and state is, in my opinion, critical to the proper governance of a nation interested in protecting the minority from the will of an oppressive majority.
I'm pretty big on my Catholicism as well and I too agree this is one of the things we cannot in good conscience attempt to enforce in society (I have somewhat of a theological difference on the interpretation of gay marriage, which I think shouldn't constitute a sin under Catholic understanding).
And many other Catholics think the same way. For instance, it was a very Catholic president over here in Chile the one who set up the legal framework for gay marriage to happen (it's still in the Civil Union part, but should be regular marriage within 5 years or so, depending on legislative clockwork).
My hope is that this change in the US helps with two things: The key one which is the dignifying of human beings that happen to be gay, and the secondary, but very important for me at least, which is to help Catholics in particular and Christians in general (as there are some denominations that have already fixed that) finally understand that the usual "gay is evil" rhetoric goes against the very fundamentals of our religion.
While I know enough to know the Catholic Church has never actually thought gays were evil, just disordered, I've been wondering recently if there can ever be any real acceptance of homosexuality within the Catholic Church.
The problem as I see it is that homosexual behavior is a sin and so there is no way for homosexuals to have romantic relationships or be married in the Church. They can be celibate and in the Church but for many love and family is too important for them to live without a partner their whole life without suffering terribly. I don't really see a solution to the problem beyond gay Catholics either making great sacrifices for their faith or choosing to live in a state of mortal sin.
May I ask what is your theological idea of why gay marriage shouldn't be a sin? How can homosexual love be accepted into the Church? I would be very excited to know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately the religious bakers and florists should probably get out of the wedding business if that is too big of problem for them. They can always sell "tiered cakes" and not "wedding cakes" and "party arrangements" and not "wedding arrangements".
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something occurred to me the other day when I was reading (of all things, an MRA rant):
When a group is accustomed to being in power, equality feels like oppression.
Man, I think taxes are immoral.
Think I'm just gonna stop paying 'em.
This is both 100% within my rights and it would be wrong for me to suffer any legal consequences whatsoever.
Man, I think taxes are immoral.
Think I'm just gonna stop paying 'em.
This is both 100% within my rights and it would be wrong for me to suffer any legal consequences whatsoever.
Hey, we agree on something!
Though I probably wouldn't just stop paying them.
You could join the clergy though...that's one way in the US (I believe, not a member myself, but that's what I've heard) to not pay taxes!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is not a reflection of my actual views, merely an absurd example of how you can claim anything is immoral to you in order to try and avoid doing something you don't want to do.
I personally don't mind paying taxes. They're necessary, and I generally get back most of what I put in anyway.
That is not a reflection of my actual views, merely an absurd example of how you can claim anything is immoral to you in order to try and avoid doing something you don't want to do.
I personally don't mind paying taxes. They're necessary, and I generally get back most of what I put in anyway.
And there are real people who actually believe what you said sarcastically, and actually do stop paying, and will even go to court over it. And then they'll say that income tax is slavery, so they don't have to pay because of the 13th Amendment. In tax court.
They never win with claims like that, but they can sure as hell waste the government's (and their) time.As usual, a person who claims they are morally opposed to a given law is not exempt from that law.
Better than the folks who claim that the taxes are only applicable to their legal fiction identity, which is their birth certificate, and because their name is spelled in capital letters, also not them. Then try to use navel law to claim themselves lost at sea, or take over court proceedings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
navel law
Is this where they define the difference between inies and outies?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3) Israel being a really lousy country - it is, though in more complicated ways than most people believe. It is very possible to be judgmental of one's own country. Even recommended, in cases like mine. Specifically, for example, the whole marriage thing is one of the most blatant example of wrongness in Israel. the one and only authority on marriage law is the Orthodox religion institute. That means it is not only homophobic, it is also racist (non Jews may not marry Jews) and sexist (the religious institute also handles divorces, which opens the door to a host of ugly discrimination against women that would have been more in place say 3000 years ago than today). But - let us leave this subject at this. The last thing the thread needs is a derail into Israel-territory.Actually for you, I think that should be the forefront of conversation. Why is it good to discuss inequality in other nations when it is much worse in your own. Shouldn't you then be discussing and pushing the problems of things much closer to home and which affect you directly than that of places on the other side of the world.
Not that I think it's bad, I enjoy your contributions, but I think the conditions in Israel would also be something at the forefront in your own discussions of equality and justice?
Right now the closest hospital to me is 15 minutes away. I believe I broke my arm two days ago. The closest hospital I trust is an hour and a half away currently, and the one which I trust with my medical records is probably 3 hours away. This is a current problem I'm facing...but it pales to what I think I might have to deal with in the Nation of Israel. What actions are you doing to ensure equality in your own nation?
Edit: On that note, perhaps I'll be taking a trip soon and get treatment, which probably means much to everyone's relief, I'll be absent from the forums for a little bit.
Well, first off I'm not entirely a stranger to the U.S - I was born there and have a citizenship, and if I am ever to leave my country (which I am planning to do as soon as I'm able) the U.S is the most likely place I'll end up. I know the language, am relatively familiar with the culture and have that ever important citizenship.
Secondly, the US is in many ways the only superpower in the world right now. Things that happen there matter to everyone to some degree.Thirdly, me being active on this forum is not mutually exclusive to me being active in other places as well. In personal conversations and in some degree through social media I am promoting my ideas in Israel (even sent a latter to a newspaper once, which I don't think they've done anything with). The problem is that things are so seriously bad in regards to marriage law here that legalizing same-sex marriage seems impossible. The religious types in control of that situation are very strongly opposed. Just imagine letting letting the Amish get exclusive rights to decide who can marry whom and you'll have roughly the correct idea in mind. And unlike the U.S where the democratic party came to support gay rights in recent years, the majority of political power in Israel does not. That majority has been in power for a decade now and no reasonable opposition is forming.
But... I'm not sure exactly what the situation is with you that actually makes you terrified of going to a hospital nearby... but one thing Israel is light years ahead of the US on is public health and equal treatment in hospitals. I've never heard of anyone being denied service for anything, and the doctors and nurses are somehow very diverse - all the different tribes of Arab and Jews, men and women working together peacefully in service of something noble. I daresay that regardless of your identity, you would have received fair treatment in any Israeli hospital.
navel lawIs this where they define the difference between inies and outies?
It's the difference between keyboard and cellphone typing. :P
You could join the clergy though...that's one way in the US (I believe, not a member myself, but that's what I've heard) to not pay taxes!
I think religious institutions can be considered tax exempt, not individuals. There are plenty of cases of evangelists and religious folks who have tried to hide personal fortunes as "church property", only to end up in jail for tax fraud.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I've got back and removed some posts and replies to them/quoting them. Conflating any issue relevant to the original topic with a terrorist organization is completely out of place and baiting. Also, do not attack others in the conversation. If there's a point brought up that you disagree with, assert the idea and debate that, not the other person.
|
|
Huh. Can't say I entirely agree with some of the posts that got removed, specifically a back and forth I had with Jaelithe where I claimed that considering homosexuality to be inherently wrong is not considered a reasonable assumption. I can't tell what exactly about that conversation was so offensive it had to be removed.
Or some particularly stupid troll logic pieces like this.
But be careful: If you're a liberal it might make you EXPLODE!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or some particularly stupid troll logic pieces like this.
But be careful: If you're a liberal it might make you EXPLODE!
actually, I have no problem with the second amendme-
I really don't care for concealed weapons. I want them out in the open, proudly displayed.
I'm all for six shooters, actually.
Or some particularly stupid troll logic pieces like this.
But be careful: If you're a liberal it might make you EXPLODE!
Some unique ideas, I'm not certain if the idea holds water or not. If they push it I suppose they'll get a Federal ruling sooner than later. It could be somewhat interesting if they actually follow through on their statement to bring all their CCL's to DC and see what comes of it...
I imagine the first thing, if it's a large crowd and they all make it known, is possibly a lot of arrests?
The court cases would ensue after that?
|
The logic is (for those having trouble with it):
1) A permit - tied to an established right..
2) Which varies from State to State in enforcement or even if they are issued at all..
3) Should have uniformity with all other States already issuing said permits tied to the established right.
This should be fun to watch...
I hope this happens..not just with CC permits but also the unconstitutional acts of rogue states limiting magazine capacities to 10 rounds.
A post I made to my wall on Facebook:
If your post could be confused with a Westboro Baptist Church sign, you need to rethink your life.
The logic is (for those having trouble with it):
1) A permit - tied to an established right..
2) Which varies from State to State in enforcement or even if they are issued at all..
3) Should have uniformity with all other States already issuing said permits tied to the established right.
No, it should be uniform within the state regardless of the person applying for it. Thats what equal treatment under the law means, the same way it applies to any other permit or right.
|
|
But there's no logic in tying that to marriage equality.
It has jack s$** to do with marriage equality, it has everything to do with State rights and laws enacted by the States that trump individual rights as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
States also had the right to decide who they issued marriage permits to and who would be denied on a State-by-State basis. That ended last week when the SCOTUS took that ability away from the States.But why stop there, I hope soon that one day we have the Affordable Weapon Act - where everyone of combat age (15 and up) should be required to purchase a fully automatic assault rifle - that or pay a hefty tax (or Jail)!
Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No, it should be uniform within the state regardless of the person applying for it. Thats what equal treatment under the law means, the same way it applies to any other permit or right.
You should be telling that to the SCOTUS instead of posting it here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I was just looking at this thread and saying to my buddy, here, I was all, "Yeah it's fun and all, but gay rights aren't quite controversial 'nuff, what about if we like tie in gun control or something?"
Imagine my surprise when I refreshed the page and saw that someone else had the same idea!