Do no harm.
Clerk won't give gay couple marriage license
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Do no harm.
Quetzal
New member
Oh ok, I am not familiar. Went right over my head.
It is worth a read and a ponder.
Like Cortés on the cusp of the unknown, boats burning behind us.
The Second Coming
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Yeats
Thanks TH. I get goose bumps every time I read this poem. A poem speaks volumes with minimal words.
And I ponder it over and over again.
Yet, there is earth under my feet, air in my lungs, a song in my heart and food in the fridge! I finished my last glass of wine yesterday, my books of verse are on my shelf and bread is in the larder. The "Thou" of my life is no longer with me.
He does not view his opinions as unfair and bigoted. He is exercising his freedom of choice.
Of course I ought not to speak for him but I feel that he is a good man.
Quetzal
New member
Right, but his opinion, in this case, is a textbook definition of the term.
Shasta
Well-known member
The "flat earth analogy" is meant to imply that whatever we believe or do in the present is "progress" (or right) soley by virtue of it being in the present - as if this legal innovation were a new discovery proven by science. It is the arrogance of the present which sees the present moment as the peak towards which every generation has been striving (I do not remember who said that). That every change is necessarily an improvement is an expression of the 19th century belief in inevitable progress. The 20th century alone should have been enough to dispel that notion.
For someone to be compelled to participate in the celebration of a rite they regard as reprehensible (even if by providing the cake, or officiating over the legal licensure of such an event) is a violation of that person's right to act according to their conscience. You probably "discriminate" against certain practices because you think they are wrong too. If you have any integrity you do. The Supreme Court cannot really decide what is right only what they think it is. In this case because you agree with them you all ready to jump on the bandwagon, prosecute, fine or fire those who do not actively cooperate with the new regime.
What if the Supreme Court were to lower the age of consent to 11, providing that a parental permission form were signed and notarized? If you were a notary would you notarize the form? I hope not but if this practice had been declared to be the "law" by the Supreme Court it would be then be the "right" thing to do. Refusing to comply would make you guilty of discrimination against a "minority" and subject to fines, firing and prosecution. Then you would be classified by this Brave New World of the future as a bigot, a hater, a pariah by all more liberally- minded citizens. You think the Court would never do this? Maybe this generation will not but since there is no unchangeable framework of law anymore only Court opinions based on other court opinions you cannot guarantee what will happen.
Several magic words have been introduced into the conversation: "discrimination" and "minorities." The rules of PC dictate that once these syllables are uttered the opponent in the debate must immediately surrender or else come under the spell of the ad hominem and be transformed into the most hideous and hated of all creatures - the bigot (shudder)! One way to be free of this is to always agree that a person in a numerical minority must be able to do whatever they wish even if you believe that practice is universally a bad idea for everyone.
Sorry I don't buy it. The issue is that I do not believe gay "marriage" is healthy, wise or right for society or moral for an individual. A lot of people agree with me in this but now a group of lawyers have deprived us of the right to vote on laws.
The issue is not about who is in the majority or minority. Even if homosexuals were in the majority and dominated society I would hold the same opinion I do now. The reasons for this belief have nothing to do with some secret desire of mine to persecute part of the population. Before this court ruling my belief in the illegitimacy of gay marriage did not make me a bigot. It made me law abiding citizen. The Court's ruling has now made me a bigot - at least according to some. It is amazing what transformative powers these court rulings have.
Look at it this way, perhaps those who think like I do are in the minority now. We are in some States. Are OUR rights as a minority to be violated by the oppressive majority? Are we to be discriminated against? Are we now to become the persecuted by the tolerant? Be careful the spell can work on you too. See, I can play the "minority" "discrimination" card too.
Many segments of the population are "minorities" "Rights" should not be assigned on the basis of a population's numerical status but upon larger principles. Marriage between a man and woman represents a larger and more sensible principle than the right of homosexuals to marry. Since males and females comprise a reproductive unit they have a common genetic interest in raising a family which results in propagation of the species. This is the way it works in the natural world. The heterosexual marriage paradigm has no objective basis outside the airy imagination of five lawyers.
Now that the original logical paradigm of marriage has been nullified marriage has no stabilizing principle. Thus it will mutate over time becoming whatever arrangement "consenting adults" decide. The original paradigm was self limiting by nature. Now that the court has taken the right to make laws regulating marriage away from the States and given it to themselves they will have to paper over their mistakes from now on with new and equally arbitrary legislation. Thus what began as a constitutional system of government with democratic input will become a Judiciarchy of Common Law.
Last edited:
lol.... you are funny.
In nature there are NO homosexual animals. In other words there are no rabbits, or squirrels, or dogs, that PERFER having sex with the same gender.
Animals have a strong sex drive and they often try to mate with the same sex but not by choice. It's merely because that's the only other animal around and animals do what they do. Human homosexuality is another thing entirely. Two gay guys are not mistakenly having sex with each because they didn't know any better "dang I thought that was a girl". :doh:
And even IF (for sake of argument).... a homosexual animal (one that preferred the same sex over the opposite sex) could be found that wouldn't mean that homosexuality was normal. It would only mean that there are animals with a similar defect that some humans have.
In the animal kingdom or amongst humans.... homosexual activity isn't biologically normal. Our sex organs have function. As do our other organs. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how and why these parts work and what they are intended for.
Shasta
Well-known member
Then you must be a Logical Positivist
Jose Fly
New member
No one is being compelled to do anything. If they believe issuing marriage licenses to gay couples or baking them wedding cakes is immoral, then they have the choice not to be in a position where they would be asked to do so.
Would you support a Muslim 911 operator who refused to aid Jews or Christians?
Where has anyone here said "minorities must be able to do whatever they wish"? Or is this just a ridiculous straw man on your part?
Then don't get gay married. But the rest of society is not beholden to your beliefs.
So you disagree with our Constitutional system of government? What would you like to replace it with?
It always strikes me as funny (not in a good way) how fundamentalists try and turn the discussion into one where if they're not allowed to discriminate, they are the victims of discrimination.
No wonder your side lost in court.
You mean like "equal protection under the law" and "due process", which were the basis of the SCOTUS decision (not the "numerical status" you claimed)?
They did that before with Loving v. Virginia. Were you opposed to that too?
Um....under the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court's role to decide whether laws are constitutional or not. Why do you want to change that? Because of an outcome you didn't like?
TracerBullet
New member
If you had bothered to read the posts you would have noticed i was not talking about any "legal innovation"
So if you seel your car to a person who say a year later gets very drunk and while driving runs a red light and smashes into another vehicle and ends up killing the driver. Are you a participant in this killing?
People with integrity don't confuse discrimination against against a minority with making decisions
your "new regime" is steaming pile of male bovine droppings. Discrimination is illegal and wrapping that discrimination up in bible verses doesn't change that discrimination into something else. All it does is tarnish Christianity.
Individuals who choose to discriminate have to face the legal and social consequences of that choice. It doesn't matter if that discrimination is directed against gays or against blacks or against Jews or against the handicapped. And it doesn't matter if one pretends that the act of discriminating is somehow an act of religion.
you might want to refresh yourself on the definitions of a minority
And this is another pile. You have a very busy bull
Just like how a group of lawyers deprived you of the right to vote on segregation or interracial marriage.
are you sure?
Beliefs don't make people bigots, actions do.
Again go look up just what a minority is.
Your right to discriminate ends when it infringes on the rights of others
Rights aren't based on numbers. IN this country rights are based on the constitution which states that everyone (even people you don't happen to like) have the same rights and the same legal protections and those rights and protections cannot just be voted away
except that the ability or even desire to reproduce is not a requirement for marriage
travel back in time 50 years and you could hear this same rant going on about ending anti -miscegenation laws.
TracerBullet
New member
try actually researching the topic sometime
Excellent post, animals also often mount another (as well as inanimate objects and people) also for a show of dominance, and has nothing to do with sex.
Quetzal
New member
You can all pat Knight on the head all you like but it does occur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
No, it doesn't mean they are homos. Is my female dog gay, because she sometimes tries to hump my leg when she wants to play and feels a little aggressive? Shes not only a girl dog but fixed by the way too.
Quetzal
New member
It may mean exactly that. It isn't conclusive, it is simply a theory counter to Knight's. In the end, it really doesn't matter. You are all actively searching for excuses to warrant your biased hate. Note how quickly Knight and you have abandoned previous theories and bandwagon on another. It is circular and it won't stop, I guess I have to come to terms with that.