LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI didn't realize that Affirmative Action was only for homosexuals and didn't apply to other minorities.Originally Posted by Swoop187
Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
So. You think its ok to make large segments of people suffer because you don't like a very small demographic This is your version of Christianity? You know according to fishjoel, and others, people like you are the reason I don't like Christianity. You know the one's who approve horrible things in the name of religion and then excuse it because it is in the bible.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
I didn't realize that Affirmative Action was only for homosexuals and didn't apply to other minorities.
U.S. Senator
Correct. The ammendment is saying that social services must be secular. I have a hard time coming up with a justification other than "We don't like your beliefs" for such a restriction.
Seriously, if the church is performing a large number of charitable functions, functions which better the lives of many people in the DC area, why should the city council pick a fight with them in this manner, trying to force a religious institution into secularity? Keep in mind, the politicians are the ones trying to change the status quo, and that makes them the agressors in this situation. For me, this means that any consequences fall on their shoulders harder than anyone elses.
Don't use words like "suffer" do you realize you're being mellow dramatic when you use language like that?
You don't know what the fuck suffering actually is, then you equate marriage rights to suffering?
Its fucking pathetic.
Come correct or don't come at all.... I don't respect people who use propaganda to sell their bullshit, ya dig???
Now get with reality or go run to your drama queen liberals who will manufacture the idea of "gay suffrage" for you.
Does affirmative action apply to me?
No I'm excluded from it right?
Now drop the "victim hood" crap and realize what my point is. Its not that hard and I don't think your stupid enough to have it go over your fucking head.
Equality is equality and their is NOTHING equal about "special rights" for minorities.
You want progress then give up the affirmative action shit because its been abused and exploited just like every other liberal idea has been.
Vice President
No the church does not have to draw the line. The church already obeys spousal benefit regs when dealing with employees even if those employees are sinners who have marriages that are not recognized by the church as sacramental. There is no good reason for singling out homosexuals in this manner. The church cannot reasonably expect to be treated as an arbiterr of religious and moral questions if they behave in a manner that places politics above releigious and moral considerations.
"You can't always write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say, so sometimes you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream."
Frank Zappa
Secretary of State
lol@swoop not understanding the meaning of the word "suffrage"
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
I guess youz just delusional then buddy.
You clearly have a problem recognizing religious law, morals and ethics if you agree with them or not they still exist. But of course you never take that into account.
Now at least give Christians this, they don't hang homosexuals....
I know what suffrage is .........I type 140 minimum, there is always bound to be mistakes and I'm not a liberal so I don't feel the need to "prove" my intelligence via grammar.
All though you already know it was an error but felt the need to insult me regardless for my stance on this issue.
Vice President
DC wants to pass a same sex msrriage law and that IMO is the right thing to do. The law is meaningless if you allow every homophobe to ignore it with a religious or moral exemption. And even if they did adopt an exemption for private citizens, the church is receiving taxpayer dollars. Any receiver of public money must be expected to follow the law. And finally, the fact that the church already pays salaries and spousal benefits to people whose marriages they regard as sinful exposes their claim as politically - not morally - motivated. So I don't thiink you can really categorize DC as the "agressor" here. I dont see what choice the city has.
"You can't always write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say, so sometimes you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream."
Frank Zappa
Vice President
Nothing you've written here bears any relation to the post you are supposedly responding to. I happen to be a catholic myself and am very familiar with the morals and ethics associated with my faith. But the stand of the church in this matter has nothing at all to do with those morals and ethics and is nothing but a political stand. Please read my post before responding next time.
"You can't always write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say, so sometimes you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream."
Frank Zappa
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
Is that what using good grammar is? Damn I missed that lesson in English class.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
Hey we may treat them like second class citizens but at least we are not hanging them. Aren't we great. See how non-discriminative we are. We don't kill them.
Secretary of State
but that's not a typo. you blatantly used the incorrect word. changing "suffering" to "suffrage" is not a grammatical or typing error, it's a display of someone using a word they don't understand.
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
U.S. Senator
I didn't see the link to the second page, and thought the article was complete on the first page. I was unaware that they were taking city monies. In this case, yes, they should be required to comply with city guidelines, or the city has the right to withdraw funding. I agree on this point. My objections were entirely predicated on the idea that the city was refusing the church the right to provide charitable services on its own dime, under its own conditions.
I do think, however, they should add in a private exemption to the bill, because A) I believe it is unethical to compel someone to perform a service against their will, and B) I don't believe it is ethical to create politically protected or preferred classes of people.. Of course, we've had this argument before in the racism thread, and we didn't really settle it there, so...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks