Hats Off To TH....

Eeset

Eeset

.
LIFETIME MEMBER
Reminds me of one of my favorite Mark Twain quotes.

Never%2BArgue%2BWith%2BStupid%2BPeople%2B-%2BMark%2BTwain%2B-%2BWisdom%2BQuote.jpg
 
B

bybee

New member
rainee

rainee

New member
Arthur Brain said:
In fairness there's any number of posts I could have picked in this thread but this resonated a bit more than others so for anyone interested....:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3287161&postcount=3416

:thumb:


RULES

Well, none really, have at it AFAIC. Agree, disagree, moan, complain, whatever....

:)

:plain:
Click to expand...

Hi there Arthur Brain!
It has been awhile since I've done this, I hope remember how.

Now then, what does AFAIC mean? And putting that aside, I am here to "disagree, moan, complain" and "whatever"! So thank you very much!

It makes sense to me that one with the name Brain would like TH's words. He can rather bury and/or tie up the little gray cells (but I don't dare guess you are into bondage.)

Please see this as an example from his post:

Surely even you, as a haterosexual, can understand that there's a difference between recognizing the basis of the law and an unjustifiable abrogation within that standard and a support of the activity.



Most minds once they navigate over that mindful are too grateful to have survived that they may not think to go back and take a really good look at it.

So who among us recognizes the basis for the law of marriage?

Do we count the existence of marriage as longer than there has been
written accounts of civilizations all over the world??

Do we wonder (at all, even a little) that 'marriage laws' are not for democratic societies, not for the highly civilized cultures, not for the
good and kind governments to offer beneficially and defend?

Marriage laws were for every society on earth - even if they didn't have a flag, or a written constitution, or nice leaders.

So what is this "basis of the law" for marriage?
Men used to be able to legally kill their wives. (Babylonian Law, I think)
Men could legally beat their wives (GB and the USA, I think)

And now TH says homosexuals should have the right to get married like men and women do since there is an understanding of the basis of the law of marriage.

If any old laws for wife beating exist on the books - will the stronger, money making homosexual partner be allowed to beat the other legally?

Or will TH say the laws did not understand the basis of the laws for marriage?

What is the "unjustifiable abrogation" to that law of marriage that he speaks of? Is it unfair to hold homosexuals out of this thing that goes back before recorded history? They want in?

Let's take away nofault divorce in the USA.
Let's return "adultery" as a grounds that causes one partner to win and the cheater to lose (money, land, and rights).


Oh hypocritical liberals where art thou
What is this "basis of the law" for marriage?
 
rainee

rainee

New member
oh, and err sorry AB
I just realized this in not a regular thread but in some kind of posts of day place.

It showed up in Active so I didn't know it wasn't regular..:eek:
Couldn't we have these marked?

AB, carry on
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
rainee said:
...
Please see this as an example from his post:
Click to expand...
Hiya rainee. I always illustrate principles when I understand a bit might give people fits. I did it right after that bit, in fact.

Here goes again: I can support the Klan's right to march without supporting anything they stand for. Because I believe in the right of peaceful protest.

Similarly, I can support the right of homosexuals to marry without condoning their lifestyle, because what I'm supporting is equality before the law and to right where there is, so far as I've witnessed it, no secular, objective reason to discriminate on the point.

So who among us recognizes the basis for the law of marriage?
Click to expand...
Before you declare it a religious institution, let me remind you that atheists have for some time been marrying without people declaring the institution is demeaned by that or that they should be denied access to the right to that secular contract.

So what is this "basis of the law" for marriage?
Click to expand...
You mean the historical foundation, because the basis is contract and the desire on the part of two people to enter into a binding relation, with legal rights and obligations, made before the state.

And now TH says homosexuals should have the right to get married
Click to expand...
Rather, I'm saying there's no justifiable basis at law for denying them a right which is demonstrably contractual and needn't have any relation to religious faith or practice, which is why the atheist can marry.

What is the "unjustifiable abrogation" to that law of marriage that he speaks of?
Click to expand...
It's denying them the right to do what we do for no better reason than it offends our religious sensibilities or sense of tradition.

Is it unfair to hold homosexuals out of this thing that goes back before recorded history?
Click to expand...
In our society? Absolutely. Is it unfair to deny people the right to own other people? A right that goes back before recorded history? Same answer.

They want in?
Click to expand...
Rather, they want you to stop excluding without justification, to stand before the law in right as you do, as the atheist does, as the heathen does.

I'm married. I married in a church and before God. My marriage is also recognized by the state. Neither the absurd divorce rate, nor atheists marrying, nor homosexual's being unobstructed in the exercise of that right diminishes my faith, my marriage or my values relating to it. If you think it does, then I'd say the problem is yours. As it would be if you were offended by Jews being allowed to live next door or liberals being entitled to vote.

Let's take away nofault divorce in the USA.
Click to expand...
Bad idea. It's frequently a way mature adults, who realize they've made a mistake and who may not share a religious understanding that requires them to remain in that estate. It's also frequently used to shield children from a public airing of some lapse of character that would impact their perception and relation with the parent.

I've had women and men say to me, "He/she is a bad husband/wife but a good father/mother." They don't want their business in the public record. And that should be their business as far as I'm concerned.

Let's return "adultery" as a grounds that causes one partner to win and the cheater to lose (money, land, and rights).
Click to expand...
You don't have to. Alienation of affection is already an actionable offense and adultery does impact the disposition of marital assets and child custody in many states. It does in mine. It doesn't in community property states as much.

Oh hypocritical liberals where art thou
What is this "basis of the law" for marriage?
Click to expand...
I'm neither liberal nor hypocrite. And you've had your answer. :e4e:
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
Arthur Brain said:
In fairness there's any number of posts I could have picked in this thread but this resonated a bit more than others so for anyone interested....:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3287161&postcount=3416

:thumb:


RULES

Well, none really, have at it AFAIC. Agree, disagree, moan, complain, whatever....

:)

:plain:
Click to expand...

I don't usually partake in the whole back-patting business (unless it's a funny post) but Town's domination of aCW is to be applauded.

Kudos for TH calling aCW out on his two most recent errors and making him squirm like the worm he is. :guitar:
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Town Heretic said:
No, that's you telling the sort of half truth that would make the author of that Pink Swastika screed blush with pride. I've recognized that there's no legitimate secular argument against it and that the law requires more than our religious feeling and personal distaste (see: the Klan is marching, supra).
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Great response, TH! :)
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rainee said:
Let's take away no fault divorce in the USA.
Let's return "adultery" as a grounds that causes one partner to win and the cheater to lose (money, land, and rights).
Click to expand...

:thumb: ITA ... and let's make *fault* divorce retroactive back to 1980.
 
rainee

rainee

New member
Town Heretic said:
Hiya rainee. I always illustrate principles when I understand a bit might give people fits. I did it right after that bit, in fact.
Click to expand...

Yes, people have fits, I know I do. But your illustrations should be a snug fit I would think if you are going to use them.

Here goes again: I can support the Klan's right to march without supporting anything they stand for. Because I believe in the right of peaceful protest.
Click to expand...

If at night they are running around breaking the law and may be under investigation why would you support their right to march?
What if the Mafia decided to give out turkeys for Christmas but they dealt out drugs to school children during the regular week - would you take a turkey?


Similarly, I can support the right of homosexuals to marry without condoning their lifestyle, because what I'm supporting is equality before the law and to right where there is, so far as I've witnessed it, no secular, objective reason to discriminate on the point.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can't argue with supporting equality before the law because it is only after women were given some equality under the law that homosexuals even bother to look at marriage. They would have gone screaming to apparent celibacy if we demanded they marry the ones they have sex with as in the old days. You do think about that, don't you?


Before you declare it a religious institution, let me remind you that atheists have for some time been marrying without people declaring the institution is demeaned by that or that they should be denied access to the right to that secular contract.
Click to expand...

Oh no! No, Mr, I'm not saying this is a religious institution. This may have started in the Garden - but just think - it went everywhere
after the Tower of Babel.

It is not good for man to be alone.
Woman is able to be a helpmeet unlike anyone or thing else and with babies you can grow your own world.

You mean the historical foundation, because the basis is contract and the desire on the part of two people to enter into a binding relation, with legal rights and obligations, made before the state.
Click to expand...

Town, how you think in modern terms!
In the past a man with a woman or women held power and ability, cities and towns or anything civil came after I bet. You think not?

Governments came along afterwards and they had to deal with our human problems - of which you know about and spoke about as a lawyer.
I've read most all of Gene Stratton-Porter's books, that is how old fashioned I am at looking at things.
Married people lived and worked independently and for their family as a unit. They worked to do both. It can be hard. Would homosexuals even know what that was about? I think it would be as friends at best, if they are so.


I'm married. I married in a church and before God. My marriage is also recognized by the state. Neither the absurd divorce rate, nor atheists marrying, nor homosexual's being unobstructed in the exercise of that right diminishes my faith, my marriage or my values relating to it. If you think it does, then I'd say the problem is yours. As it would be if you were offended by Jews being allowed to live next door or liberals being entitled to vote.
Click to expand...

If the bird flu came tomorrow to the humans in the US, you and your family and your extended family and your friends and your community would all try to work towards survival. But it would to a certain extent entail closing ranks. Homosexuals would have to work with the love of friends - if they developed it.

Rather, I'm saying there's no justifiable basis at law for denying them a right which is demonstrably contractual and needn't have any relation to religious faith or practice, which is why the atheist can marry.
Click to expand...

Look around the world for all of known time: Marriage isn't a right it is a relationship.
Men and women didn't need a government or a church to marry them for them to actually be married.

Laws may help make better husbands and wives, is that what homosexuals want? Some one to hold rules over their relationship?
Funny, I bet not.
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rainee said:
Why do i fear you do not totally agree, Rusha?
Click to expand...

Paranoia? :idunno:

Please explain - I know nothing of 1980's divorce. :eek:
Click to expand...

Because in a good many cases, one of the spouses has taken part in some sort of activity that should be punished. No fault divorce is telling individuals who commit acts such as adultery, violence, etc. that their actions are acceptable.
 
rainee

rainee

New member
Rusha said:
Paranoia? :idunno:
Click to expand...
Maybe so - and apparently wrongly so -



Rusha said:
Because in a good many cases, one of the spouses has taken part in some sort of activity that should be punished. No fault divorce is telling individuals who commit acts such as adultery, violence, etc. that their actions are acceptable.
Click to expand...

We do agree!


Ps I couldn't find anything about a pick swastika that you apparently quoted from TH's post?
What does that mean?
Is there a pink swastika?
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
rainee said:
...If at night they are running around breaking the law and may be under investigation why would you support their right to march?
Click to expand...
Peacefully and legally? Of course. You prosecute the ones who break the law for the law they break.

What if the Mafia decided to give out turkeys for Christmas but they dealt out drugs to school children during the regular week - would you take a turkey?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't take anything from an illegal organization if I didn't have to. But that has nothing to do with the point.

Do you or don't you understand that you can support a St. Patrick's Day parade without being either a lover of things Irish or an alcoholic?

If you do then you take my point.

Ok, I can't argue with supporting equality before the law...
Click to expand...
Well, that's the issue.

...Look around the world for all of known time: Marriage isn't a right it is a relationship.
Click to expand...
That's a flawed argument. You could have made it for slavery not that far into the past. Or for keeping property and/or the vote from women. But here and now we have law and you have the same right before it as the next fellow. And that's what I'm talking about.

Men and women didn't need a government or a church to marry them for them to actually be married.
Click to expand...
They still don't, depending on what they want from the institution.

Laws may help make better husbands and wives, is that what homosexuals want?
Click to expand...
What they want is equality in right and standing before the law. And if you'd deny them that you need to have a better reason than feeling or an appeal to historical models that permitted any number of things you'd be less than enamored with.

:e4e:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top