I really don't think getting the government out of marriage is going to happen though... and come to think of it, I doubt that's what you were actually proposing, as you probably weren't thinking things through there. If the government is going to recognize marriage in a secular way, then I suppose it's only fair that the government applies the term "marriage" in a secular way to homosexual marriages. Certainly the U.S. government wouldn't come forward with the argument that the secular aspect of government-recognized marriages are based on the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, since that would be a violation of separation of church and state.
It comes down to a question of fairness. Either the government recognizes both homosexual and heterosexual marriages, or neither. Meanwhile, Orson Scott Card's political group, NOM, isn't working towards such a fair solution. It wants government recognition of heterosexual marriage, but not homosexual marriage.
Last edited by Yttrium; 02-16-2013 at 09:24 PM.
Current favorites: Claymore, Birds of Prey, Black God, A Certain Scientific Railgun, Excel Saga
P-Man "Does no one remember the NES? Flashing grey screens? Hmmm? Cartridges you had to blow so much that you expected there to be a fifty dollar bill on the nightstand in the morning?"
Wannabe "It worked better if you slightly licked the game. I know it sounds odd, but it works really really well. At least on N64."
Despite comments that not one jot or title shall be overlooked, there are parts of the Bible that people seem to let slide. For example, Paul of Tarsus talks about how it is a shameful thing for a women to speak in church. Not lead the congregation, just speak.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." [1 Corinthians 14:33-34]
So clearly our beliefs evolve. This one should as well, I think.
Irene Adler: “I would have you right here on this desk until you begged for mercy twice.”
Sherlock: “I’ve never begged for mercy in my life.”
If NOM isn't committing any crimes then why should their members be penalized in the private sector for who they are associated with? I realize the letter of the law doesn't necessarily protect individuals from employers discriminating against them but I think it's within the spirit of the law.
And if not, it should be.
Last edited by Ntikrst; 02-17-2013 at 04:55 AM.
Proof is imminent...
Or is it the Marriage Licence that's the real obstacle? Then shouldn't the government have to separate church and state and thereby have no grounds for denying any applicants?
Proof is imminent...
Actual comments exchanged on an article on this subject:
Originally Posted by HimOriginally Posted by MeOriginally Posted by HimOriginally Posted by MeThe unashamed hypocrisy is stunning.Originally Posted by Him, yes this is his actual response edited by me to remove the swearing.
'The marquis. Well, you know, to be honest, he seems a little bit dodgy to me.'
'Mm,' she agreed. 'He's a little bit dodgy in the same way that rats are a little bit covered in fur."
Due to the fact that God is a fictional (one dimensional) character and a moronic idea for the impatient who made a choice to celebrate the ridiculous and homosexuality is real and not a choice, I think I'm siding with the gays here.
first he all seventh day creationist ,then he was all angry as hell smiting all over the place ,then he has a hippy kid and chills his beans now hes reworked as an absentee landlord.i wish these people would make up their minds.the Christians should just admit it once and for all he was never possessed by parallax or had bone claws and the resurrection of his dead son after fighting doomsday was laughable unbelievable and under cut every death that came after
I haven't bought anything from OSC since I picked up Ender's Shadow years ago and thought it was awful.
Then I found out he was an unashamed, unapologetic bigot and didn't feel so bad about not finishing the novel.