Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

It's that time again!Follow

#127 Dec 13 2012 at 7:17 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
****** *******
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#128 Dec 13 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
Maybe they want to get married in a specific church because it's pretty? I dunno.

Last week I got into an argument with a co-worker about the whole Christmas vs. Holidays thing. One of our regulars came in and wished us a Merry Christmas. After she left I jokingly said that next time she came in I'd wish her a Happy Yule (seeing as how I'm Wiccan). Then my co-worker asked what Yule was and I explained to her that it was a celebration of the winter solstice that many pagans celebrated. She just about threw a hissy fit right then and there. Started going off on why do people who don't celebrate Christmas buy each other presents or celebrate the holiday in any way, and a bunch of other crazy crap that didn't even make sense. Luckily there were three of us that day, and our third co-worker stepped in and basically told us both to shut up. I think it must have been my use of the word pagan that set her off, but I don't know. She's not very bright. This is the same girl that thought that Asia and Europe were countries and asked me where Irish people come from. I **** you not.
#129 Dec 13 2012 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Maybe they want to get married in a specific church because it's pretty? I dunno.

That usually doesn't work even if you're having a heterosexual wedding. Most churches have a thing about wanting you to actually belong to that church before they marry you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 Dec 13 2012 at 9:07 PM Rating: Good
That's how it is here in the US, yeah. Who knows, maybe they're more lax about that over in Denmark. Personally I don't know why anyone would want to get married in a place that is only doing it because they're legally required. I would think the negative auras in a wedding like that would just be rampant. When I get married I want people to be happy about it!
#131 Dec 14 2012 at 12:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Legalizing SSM wouldn't force clergy to perform the ceremonies any more than you can currently force a Jewish rabbi to marry a Catholic couple or vice versa. The only people who would be obligated to perform SSM ceremonies would be in a "Justice of the Peace" civil setting.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#132 Dec 14 2012 at 12:52 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
I think churches here are pretty lax about that, mostly because only about 30-40% of our country is actually religious so the majority doesn't belong to any church.
#133 Dec 14 2012 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
I honestly don't know what it's like here. I know that you have a legal right to be wed in a church if you're a member of the National Church, which is why we've got the debate about homosexual weddings in the first place. Priests have a right to practice their religion, which means they can't be forced to wed homosexual couples, but homosexual couples also have a right to be wed by a priest.

Some priests choose to wed homosexuals, others choose not to. I think that's fine, but some people are still on the fence about "equal rights" and demanding that priests should set aside their legal rights for the legal rights of others. It's a bit stupid, really, and unlikely to lead anywhere until the Christian churches acknowledge SSM.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#134 Dec 19 2012 at 4:40 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Bijou wrote:

I have this crazy notion that, as an American who is not a selfish a-hole, that anyone should be free to do as they like so long as it doesn't harm others.


You would think so, but somehow we always stay interested in these things.
#135 Dec 19 2012 at 6:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Mazra wrote:
Well, what do I know. Homosexual couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples in our country. The SSM debate here is about homosexuals wanting to be wed in a church, by a priest, and the priests refusing to do so because it goes against their constitutional right.


Thus sorta proving the slippery slope part of the issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#136 Dec 19 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Legalizing SSM wouldn't force clergy to perform the ceremonies any more than you can currently force a Jewish rabbi to marry a Catholic couple or vice versa. The only people who would be obligated to perform SSM ceremonies would be in a "Justice of the Peace" civil setting.


Guess I should have read this for the lulz first. Keep pretending that it's just about what's being fought over today.


It's funny because I was thinking about differences between liberal and conservative political methodology, and something I've sorta known all along but hadn't really verbalized occurred to me. Liberals are directionally oriented, while conservatives are positionally oriented. What I mean by this is that conservatives tend to pick a position where they think some issue should be based on their own principles and ideals. Liberals tend to pick a direction on an issue based on their own principles and ideals. So, for example, a liberal might be for more social spending and less military spending, while a conservative will instead pick an amount that he thinks we should spend on social stuff and military stuff.

This often leads to massive misunderstanding between the two groups. A conservative might be more than willing to cut some unnecessary or wasteful military spending (because he believes we should spend "enough" money, but not more), which the liberal interprets as agreement but then becomes upset when he refuses to cut spending even more. Similarly, a conservative might be fine with a certain amount of social spending, which again confuses the liberal when he wants to spend more but is opposed. But that, while sometimes amusing, isn't so much of a problem.

The real problem is that liberals don't have an end point. But it is an inherent problem when you argue "for" something or "against" something. You don't stop being for that thing once you've removed the things hindering it, but will continue to be for it while arguing for additional benefits. Conservatives tend to place the point we should be at the point at which a group is neither unduly hurt or helped. Obviously, where they perceive that to be can change over time, but the changes are always based on the "position" they think that point should be. But liberals will keep pushing on past that point in whatever direction they've picked. So if you are for women, you'll push past eliminating discrimination in the workplace and right on to requiring other people to pay for their birth control. If you are against smoking, you'll go right past people smoking in the workplace, then on to smoking in planes, to smoking in restaurants, to smoking in bars, to smoking in parks, and even in people's own homes. The examples of this kind of thing are numerous.

What's ironic though, is that many liberals don't seem to realize this. They insist that they just want to achieve the current thing. But once that thing is achieved, they will not stop there, but will move on to the next thing. Liberals actively pursue a slippery slope, but are often the first to deny it, and denounce as absurd any conservative who dares to point it out.



Dunno. Just something I've been thinking about lately, and this particular bit reminded me of it.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 4:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#137 Dec 19 2012 at 11:38 PM Rating: Good
Oh, gbaji. It's amazing how you know everybody so much better than they know themselves.

Never change.

#138 Dec 20 2012 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Guess I should have read this for the lulz first. Keep pretending that it's just about what's being fought over today.

I was responding to Pigtails and Mazra who both expressed opinions on SSM being performed by clergy. When you can show me the laws requiring clergy to perform weddings between any other group they don't want to perform for, you just let me know.

But it's swell that you typed all that in response to... nothing. Good for you!

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 8:12am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#139 Dec 20 2012 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Belkira wrote:
Oh, gbaji. It's amazing how you know everybody so much better than they know themselves.

If you weren't so directionally orientated you'd see that he's right.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#140 Dec 20 2012 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:

What's ironic though, is that many liberals don't seem to realize this.
...and that's why we have you, luv.

Keep on showing us the truth. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#141 Dec 23 2012 at 7:48 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
So I noticed a sign on a bank that said "holiday closing, closed on 24th/25th DEC". Given that Christmas Eve is on a Monday (a closed day anyway), a "Closed for Christmas" or "Closed for DEC 25th" would have been more appropriate. I've seen similar signs. They are all for the "holidays", but hours of operation only change for Christmas.

I would wager that the average person can't even spell Chanukah let alone know when it starts and ends. What I've realize is that this "movement" isn't about being inclusive to other celebrations, but not offending atheists. I've never heard other religious people complaining about Christmas, only not equally being represented.
#142 Dec 23 2012 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Christmas Eve isn't typically a day places close. Close early maybe, but usually not closed outright.


Happy Holidays Alma.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#143 Dec 23 2012 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
As a non-Christian, garbaji....why do you care?


Because I believe in protecting other people's rights, even if I don't benefit myself. Aside from the principle involved, if everyone only fought for rights that benefited themselves directly, pretty soon we wouldn't have any.
What right is being violated?



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#144 Dec 23 2012 at 12:50 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Christmas Eve isn't typically a day places close. Close early maybe, but usually not closed outright.


Happy Holidays Alma.


It wasn't closing for Christmas Eve, it was closing because it was a Monday and it's always closed for Mondays. Hence the reason why I said the sign was stupid since it was essentially only closing for Christmas.

Happy Holidays to you too.
#145 Dec 23 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
You have a bank that closes Mondays? That seems odd to me.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#146 Dec 23 2012 at 8:11 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Yes, The Navy Federal Credit Union, the commissary on post and my barbershop (in TN) work on Saturdays and get off Sundays and Mondays.
#147 Dec 30 2012 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I stand corrected. The bank IS opened on Mondays. I'm not sure how I confused that with the other establishments..
#148 Dec 30 2012 at 11:52 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
What I've realize is that this "movement" isn't about being inclusive to other celebrations, but not offending atheists. I've never heard other religious people complaining about Christmas, only not equally being represented.


It's both. As someone who is Wiccan, I don't get offended if someone wishes me a merry Christmas, but I vastly prefer to say Happy Holidays to people because then I don't have to worry about the off chance of offending them, AND I am equally representing all holidays. I could just as easily say Happy Yule, but then people look at me funny. Smiley: sly
#149 Jan 02 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
A little late, but...

Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
As a non-Christian, garbaji....why do you care?


Because I believe in protecting other people's rights, even if I don't benefit myself. Aside from the principle involved, if everyone only fought for rights that benefited themselves directly, pretty soon we wouldn't have any.
What right is being violated?


The right to express their beliefs in a public venue, just like any other expression? If group A is free to put up a display with Santa and Rudolf in a public place, but group B is not free to put up a display with Baby Jesus in the same public place, and the only reason for the discrepancy is that one is an expression of religion while the other is not, then that absolutely is a violation of the right of free speech of group B. How can it not be? You're singling out just religious speech to be barred from public places.

Think about that for a minute. If we're going to allow other expressions in a public space for some reason, then we can't make the fact that an expression might be religious in nature a criteria for allowing it in the first place. To do so is a clear violation of free speech.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 Jan 03 2013 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
A little late, but...

The right to express their beliefs in a public venue, just like any other expression? If group A is free to put up a display with Santa and Rudolf in a public place, but group B is not free to put up a display with Baby Jesus in the same public place, and the only reason for the discrepancy is that one is an expression of religion while the other is not, then that absolutely is a violation of the right of free speech of group B. How can it not be? You're singling out just religious speech to be barred from public places.

Where did this happen?



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#151 Jan 03 2013 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A little late, but...

The right to express their beliefs in a public venue, just like any other expression? If group A is free to put up a display with Santa and Rudolf in a public place, but group B is not free to put up a display with Baby Jesus in the same public place, and the only reason for the discrepancy is that one is an expression of religion while the other is not, then that absolutely is a violation of the right of free speech of group B. How can it not be? You're singling out just religious speech to be barred from public places.

Where did this happen?


You're kidding, right? Isn't this entire discussion about one side arguing it's ok to exclude religious displays on public land (because they are religious in nature), and the other arguing it's not?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 369 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (369)