Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendments?

[AstroBlue]

So you must be suppressed beyond a point before you deserve equal rights?

[Damian79]

Because they are both civil rights issues. I am not saying that "the struggle of gays is like the struggle of blacks" I am just saying that the core issues of discrimination cannot be discriminated. Both are situtations in which people have been marginalised because of what they are, not who they are. It's not devaluing the Civil Rights movement of the sixties, it's just showing people that "you obviously supported that, so why don't you support this?".

Ah, I see. You were just drawing a parallel. You might need to work on your tactfullness and wording about it though. I know that I have a shitload of work to do in both department. It's like everyday I somehow piss off 10 people that way.

[g0zen]

Ah, I see. You were just drawing a parallel. You might need to work on your tactfullness and wording about it though. I know that I have a shitload of work to do in both department. It's like everyday I somehow piss off 10 people that way.

Open your mind before opening your mouth.

[Captain Vegetable]

Except that wasn't your initial comment. You said I had "extremely limited and downright poor knowledge of all things relegious" which is a load of shit. I never said I know more about Christianity than you. I would never make such a stupid claim. But I do have well rounded knowledge of religion in general, and I'm not ignorant to the teachings of Christianity. Don't write me off as some cynical smart-ass who scoffs at religion, because it is FAR from the truth. I have a great deal of respect for religion and I consider it very important, and I actively persue religious learning.

Fair enough.

When have I ever pretended to know more about any religion than someone who practices? I just claimed to be less than ignorant. Bear in mind I say alot of things for the sake of debate that I don't neccessarily agree with, because it's regarding a point that I find contentious. i.e. I mean it as an objection, not an answer. (I'm a philosophy major, btw... debate goes hand in hand with that).

OK.

Even in this thread I added the disclaimer to my post that I don't consider what I said an attack on christianity, but a defense of science. You are not a scientist (nor do I claim to be) and all the bible in the world doesn't make you any more qualified with regard to your objection to natrual selection posted in this thread. That's what I was trying to drive home. Not debunking creationism. I have no intrest in debunking creationism. I just wanted to contest the notion that randomness is a neccessary component of the scientific account of the universe. It's not. And accepting that it's not doesn't threaten Christian doctrine in any way.I have no such aversion. Perhaps you're confusing my rants against the religious right as attacks on the religious aspect. They're not. They're attacks on the political aspect.

Well then, it seems that we agree more than I had initially surmised. I, too, hate the incorporation of relegion into politics, but I'm nearly certain it's not for the same reasons.

And when you say you have an aversion to secular philosophy, do you mean the sum total of philosophy independant of the church, or do you mean the contemporary philosophy of secularity? Because I find an aversion to the former, which includes all of logic, debate, ethical theory, political philosophy, etc to be somewhat worrysome... I wouldn't even know how to begin debating with someone who didn't beleive in the ability to conclude things through reason alone.

I should have clarified. I have an aversion to the secular philosophy concerning Christianity, though I'm sure that went without saying.

[AstroBlue]

Just look at the comment that started this:

"those who would prevent same-sex marriages, would also put Rosa Parks at the back of the bus."

I may just be unable to read between the lines, but where does that infer that the struggle of the African American is exactly like the struggle of the Homosexual? Because to me, it reads as it is: The same peson who would discriminate against Blacks would discriminate against gays; it's the same mindset.

[Damian79]

I may just be unable to read between the lines, but where does that infer that the struggle of the African American is exactly like the struggle of the Homosexual? Because to me, it reads as it is: The same peson who would discriminate against Blacks would discriminate against gays; it's the same mindset.

I think the "also" in that phrase does it. It implies same level of intensity or treatment.

Like:

Those that would beat up X kid would aslo beat up Y kid.

versus

Those that would beat up X kid would beat up Y kid.

[AstroBlue]

Your second sentence is grammatically incorrect. You need "also" to link the sentence, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Those who drink vodka, also drink scotch

Does that sentence imply the people who drink vodka drink exactly the same volume of scotch?

[Captain Vegetable]

With regards to opinions on religion in general, I would trust the person who has studied as many world religions as possible yet practices none of them. Most that practice a religion are going to believe theirs is the single correct one so there is little chance of them viewing religion in general from an objective point of view.

But it's because of that objective point of view that you'll never gain anything more than superficial truths concerning any given relegion.

Frog, clear out your PM in-box.

[Damian79]

Your second sentence is grammatically incorrect. You need "also" to link the sentence, otherwise it doesn't make sense.



Does that sentence imply the people who drink vodka drink exactly the same volume of scotch?

Dammit, I just forgot the comma in both of those.

Those that would beat up X kid, would aslo beat up Y kid.

Those that would beat up X kid, would beat up Y kid.

Those who drink vodka, drink scotch

Comparing and establishing degree: and, similarly, in like manner, in the same way, just as, so ... that, also, more than, less than, beyond this

http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources...ransitions.htm

[AstroBlue]

1. Transitions that add, repeat, or emphasize:

You simply omitted the also from those sentences in informal language, it didn't change the meaning. It's "connecting" both concepts to one party, not "connecting" the concepts together, the party is the linchpin to the whole sentence. "Also" only establishes comparison of degree in certain usage, in the usage we are using it establishes addition.

The act of the concepts is equal, but not the actual concepts.