BF2S Forums Switzerland bans minarets

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I edited. So even though those people performing the marriage ceremony are secular, you believe that god is working through them to consecrate the marriage? What would happen to a JotP, ships captain or Elvis if they performed a ceremony for a gay couple?

Actually, I have no idea what to believe, I do not know the truth, nor do I believe the truth is known by anyone alive either.

I am speaking of the laws of our society, and they are not discriminating in this matter, again, except for the example I gave.

They were only non-discriminatory in the very narrow way you presented them. You completely negated the sexual orientation of the people involved and used a very strict, very literal criteria to reaffirm marriage between a man and a woman. Who would benefit in a marriage where one of the members was gay? No one. It would be a false marriage from the start. Whether you want to admit it or not, preventing people from marrying based on the sexes involved is discriminatory.

If you are asking me if I agree with homosexuals marrying, I say yes. I have no problem with this. their relationship does not interfere with my right to life liberty or happiness. I do have a problem with the discriminatory laws that forbid hetrosexual couples from carrying each other on insurance while allowing homosexual couples to do it.

again I must re-emphasize that the laws as they are now, are not discriminatory, we all have the same rights.

Allowing same sex marriage would also be consistant with this since I assume I would also be allowed to marry a man if i chose, ( not likely) and a straight woman to marry a woman as well.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Actually, I have no idea what to believe, I do not know the truth, nor do I believe the truth is known by anyone alive either.

I am speaking of the laws of our society, and they are not discriminating in this matter, again, except for the example I gave.

They were only non-discriminatory in the very narrow way you presented them. You completely negated the sexual orientation of the people involved and used a very strict, very literal criteria to reaffirm marriage between a man and a woman. Who would benefit in a marriage where one of the members was gay? No one. It would be a false marriage from the start. Whether you want to admit it or not, preventing people from marrying based on the sexes involved is discriminatory.

If you are asking me if I agree with homosexuals marrying, I say yes. I have no problem with this. their relationship does not interfere with my right to life liberty or happiness. I do have a problem with the discriminatory laws that forbid hetrosexual couples from carrying each other on insurance while allowing homosexual couples to do it.

again I must re-emphasize that the laws as they are now, are not discriminatory, we all have the same rights.

Allowing same sex marriage would also be consistant with this since I assume I would also be allowed to marry a man if i chose, ( not likely) and a straight woman to marry a woman as well.

So you are in favor of amending the laws to include man-man and woman-woman marriages then?

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, society should interfere with ANY religion that is intolerant toward others. Opinion does not matter, as in what Catholics think of homosexuals. Catholics are not acting on their opinions. Islam carries laws that curtails the rights and freedoms of others.

WICHITA, Kan. — George Tiller, one of only a few doctors in the nation who performed abortions late in pregnancy, was shot to death here Sunday in the foyer of his longtime church as he handed out the church bulletin.

The authorities said they took a man into custody later in the day after pulling him over about 170 miles away on Interstate 35 near Kansas City. They said they expected to charge him with murder on Monday.

I guess this wasn't motivated by religion.

I assume it was, what is your point? He was caught and punished no? HE is not our culture, HE wnet against our society and its accepted behavior, just like the laws and culture of Islam.

You're stereotyping an entire religion based on the actions of a few. Why should I not do the same and stereotype all Christians as lunatics that will kill any doctor that works in an abortion clinic?

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Is it that you are hung up on the word marriage? What if the state issued 'union licenses' instead? What if any ceremony performed by a JotP, ships captain or Elvis was instead officially called a civil union? What if every government document asked if you are 'unioned' instead of married? Religious ceremonies could keep the word marriage intact.

Seems like a lot more work to me than just changing the definition of a word, but would this make it ok for you?

I don't care what ya wanna call it, call it marriage I don't care.

Why did we need to go around in circles for a page and a half just to get you to say that you would support amending the laws to include same-sex couples? You're infuriating, you know that?

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Is it that you are hung up on the word marriage? What if the state issued 'union licenses' instead? What if any ceremony performed by a JotP, ships captain or Elvis was instead officially called a civil union? What if every government document asked if you are 'unioned' instead of married? Religious ceremonies could keep the word marriage intact.

Seems like a lot more work to me than just changing the definition of a word, but would this make it ok for you?

I don't care what ya wanna call it, call it marriage I don't care.

Why did we need to go around in circles for a page and a half just to get you to say that you would support amending the laws to include same-sex couples? You're infuriating, you know that?

Because that was not the issue, the issue as argued by you was it was discrimination, it isn't. The law covers ALL men and ALL women

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

I assume it was, what is your point? He was caught and punished no? HE is not our culture, HE wnet against our society and its accepted behavior, just like the laws and culture of Islam.

You're stereotyping an entire religion based on the actions of a few. Why should I not do the same and stereotype all Christians as lunatics that will kill any doctor that works in an abortion clinic?

Nope, Sharia law is not for a "few" it covers all of Islam, and its laws are intolerable toward others.

Incorrect. Sharia law is only practiced by the Shi'a.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, Sharia law is not for a "few" it covers all of Islam, and its laws are intolerable toward others.

Incorrect. Sharia law is only practiced by the Shi'a.

Ahhhh I see, so are you telling me that you are willing to ban Shi'a from our country? Fair enough. As long as burkas, go with them, and the cabbies still pick me up if I am drunk, and my waiter still serves me pork when I order it, and they stop washing their fuckin' feet in the public sinks.

Shi'a are the only ones that wear burqa's as well. Some Sunni's wear a head scarf, but only as a symbol of tradition, same as a Christian woman would wear a cross about her neck.

Think of the Shi'a as Hassidic Jews or Amish. They are the 'fundamentalist' believers. We've had both Hassid's and Amish in our country for centuries and neither one has waged an assault upon our laws or traditions. So why would you expect a Shi'a minority to be successful?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-02 18:56:20)

Spark wrote:

Following on from that,

Shīʿites have come to account for roughly one-tenth of the Muslim population worldwide.

And I doubt all of those are fundementalist nutjobs.

No, of course not. Are there some? Of course. There are fundamentalist nutjobs in any faith.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ahhhh I see, so are you telling me that you are willing to ban Shi'a from our country? Fair enough. As long as burkas, go with them, and the cabbies still pick me up if I am drunk, and my waiter still serves me pork when I order it, and they stop washing their fuckin' feet in the public sinks.

Shi'a are the only ones that wear burqa's as well. Some Sunni's wear a head scarf, but only as a symbol of tradition, same as a Christian woman would wear a cross about her neck.

Think of the Shi'a as Hassidic Jews or Amish. They are the 'fundamentalist' believers. We've had both Hassid's and Amish in our country for centuries and neither one has waged an assault upon our laws or traditions. So why would you expect a Shi'a minority to be successful?

You are trying to break it down farther than I give a shit. Islam and its culture goes against western society period. It is a way of life just as much if not more than it is a religion. It does not not jive with western society and tolerance period.

Plenty of examples as to why.

Now you're just stereotyping because you're lazy.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ahhhh I see, so are you telling me that you are willing to ban Shi'a from our country? Fair enough. As long as burkas, go with them, and the cabbies still pick me up if I am drunk, and my waiter still serves me pork when I order it, and they stop washing their fuckin' feet in the public sinks.

Shi'a are the only ones that wear burqa's as well. Some Sunni's wear a head scarf, but only as a symbol of tradition, same as a Christian woman would wear a cross about her neck.

Think of the Shi'a as Hassidic Jews or Amish. They are the 'fundamentalist' believers. We've had both Hassid's and Amish in our country for centuries and neither one has waged an assault upon our laws or traditions. So why would you expect a Shi'a minority to be successful?

You are trying to break it down farther than I give a shit. Islam and its culture goes against western society period. It is a way of life just as much if not more than it is a religion. It does not not jive with western society and tolerance period. If you want ME culture go to the ME.

Plenty of examples as to why.

Yes, because it is far too complicated to go beyond base simplistic "Islam is evil!" and actually try to analyse this in any kind of detailed, level-headed manner.

Easier just to keep trying to push 'em down and out.

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

You are trying to break it down farther than I give a shit. Islam and its culture goes against western society period. It is a way of life just as much if not more than it is a religion. It does not not jive with western society and tolerance period. If you want ME culture go to the ME.

Plenty of examples as to why.

Yes, because it is far too complicated to go beyond base simplistic "Islam is evil!" and actually try to analyse this in any kind of detailed, level-headed manner.

Easier just to keep trying to push 'em down and out.

When Islamic law, teachings, history, culture, action and reaction pretty much speaks for itself, Spark. You are trying to make it complicated to prove a point, problem is, Islam itself goes against you.

Also I am not the one throwing name calling and insults, that, as usual comes from your camp.

If you forget the years between ~1000 and ~1900, sure.

Go read up on the Islamic Golden Age. Much of the core of Western society owes a lot to Islamic society.

And I'd like to see where I insulted you or called you names.

Last edited by Spark (2009-12-03 00:30:48)

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Why? Am I wrong?

Strictly speaking, you are entirely correct. However, you know damn well they are discriminated against because of religion.

Uhhh nope, REGARDLESS of religion, the laws are the same.

If you want to speak of inequality consider this.

A straight man can not cover his live in girlfriend on his insurance, however, a gay person can do exactly that. Where is the uproar? Because that is discrimination in its purest form.

Regardless of religion my ass. The law has been formed according to the local traditions which in turn were formulated according to the prevailing religion, christianity. Same reason why I can't have a harem (dammit).
As for the insurance thing, it's clearly some clumsy band aid to cover the blood gushing wound caused by the discriminatory law. Ergo no uproar. If the law changes to accommodate the needs of the gays then surely that insurance thing should change as well.

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Strictly speaking, you are entirely correct. However, you know damn well they are discriminated against because of religion.

Uhhh nope, REGARDLESS of religion, the laws are the same.

If you want to speak of inequality consider this.

A straight man can not cover his live in girlfriend on his insurance, however, a gay person can do exactly that. Where is the uproar? Because that is discrimination in its purest form.

Regardless of religion my ass. The law has been formed according to the local traditions which in turn were formulated according to the prevailing religion, christianity. Same reason why I can't have a harem (dammit).
As for the insurance thing, it's clearly some clumsy band aid to cover the blood gushing wound caused by the discriminatory law. Ergo no uproar. If the law changes to accommodate the needs of the gays then surely that insurance thing should change as well.

you would be correct if you can name any other relgious group in America allowed to have gay marriage. If you can't, well then, the law applies to ALL of us, not just gays, and not just Christians. No discrimination