wmw999 2,588 #1 February 2, 2012 Is not in the Constitution. Just because someone wants the world to be a certain way (i.e. what they're comfortable with) doesn't mean that it's going to happen. The more crowded the world gets, and the better that communication is, the more likely it is that some "weird" or "foreign" or "other" group is going to impinge on people's awareness. So if someone wants to live where there aren't any gay couples, it's up to them to move to where they don't (currently) exist, and not up to the gay couples to leave. Or atheists, religious people, Muslims, Christians, or even lawyers Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #2 February 3, 2012 Quote Is not in the Constitution. Just because someone wants the world to be a certain way (i.e. what they're comfortable with) doesn't mean that it's going to happen. The more crowded the world gets, and the better that communication is, the more likely it is that some "weird" or "foreign" or "other" group is going to impinge on people's awareness. So if someone wants to live where there aren't any gay couples, it's up to them to move to where they don't (currently) exist, and not up to the gay couples to leave. Or atheists, religious people, Muslims, Christians, or even lawyers The real issue here, as I see it, is that separation of church and state--something that IS mentioned in the Constitution--hasn't been practiced here. Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution--it isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Freedom of religion should mean that each religion is free to decide whether they do or do not condone gay marriage. And each individual is free to join a religion that either does or does not permit gay marriage--or not to join a religion at all, for that matter. A lot of the problem here is that the government has gotten into the business of something that is the province of religion. Government--federal or state--simply shouldn't be in the business of saying who can and who cannot get married. That is the role of religion and the only permissible role for government should be to ensure that one religion (or individual) does not trample on the rights of another religion (or individual)."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 February 3, 2012 This is the conflict. In my experience, tolerance ALWAYS reflects intolerance of certain beliefs or actions. For example, racism was not tolerated but the racist was expected to be tolerant. The bible thumper was to tolerate the homosexual, but the homosexual need not tolerate the bible-thumper. Should intolerance be tolerated in a tolerant society? Are some types of tolerance intolerable? It’s an interesting question. An advocate of tolerance should tolerate even intolerance. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 February 3, 2012 Quote Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution--it isn't mentioned in the Constitution. While I agree with your primary point, I will point out that non religious people also get married, both here, and in cultures that are/were not religious in the typical sense. It just happens that in Western countries, the church used to be the dominant force and it remains significant still. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #5 February 3, 2012 Quote The bible thumper was to tolerate the homosexual, but the homosexual need not tolerate the bible-thumper. Should intolerance be tolerated in a tolerant society? Are some types of tolerance intolerable? Yes, in society at large the homosexual should be expected to tolerate the bible thumper and the bible thumper should be expected to tolerate the homosexual. Tolerance, however, only requires minimal civility, and nothing more should be mandatory. Both the bible thumper and the homosexual are free to belong to organizations that forbid the other's membership. (Note that for convenience I'm using your terms although I might use different terms on both sides such as "devout Christian" or "gay/lesbian".)"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
