Stephen168
New member
What is the inequality that same sex couples suffer by not having access to a marriage license?
- Status
Stephen168
New member
Exactly, A lie is the source of other problems.
F
frobert
Guest
Fairness comes to mind. I was anticipating that you would shed some light on the other side of equality issue as I apparently am missing something in your previous post.
Stephen168
New member
Fairness is meaningless. What specifically is the inequality that same sex couples suffer by not having access to a marriage license?
G
Gorgias
Guest
You seem to misunderstand the relevant terms here. ‘Celibacy’ is the unmarried state; therefore, ‘marriage’ can never imply ‘celibacy’. Your appeal to eunuchs makes it plain that you’re thinking of ‘continence’, or lack of sexual activity. Celibates, by definition, should practice continence. Married folks, as it turns out, sometimes do, too.I am insulted at the claim that marriage to me implies celibacy. Are you calling me a eunuch?
So, whether or not being married to you implies continence is a question only you can answer…
F
frobert
Guest
I respectfully disagree.
Stephen168
New member
So you can’t answer the question
F
frobert
Guest
Sure I can but I don’t see any value in prolonging your game? Think of me whatever way suits you best.
Stephen168
New member
I’ve asked you the same question twice and you saying you can answer it is not the same thing as answering it. Your inability to answer it does not make it a game on my part, but I do have to wonder if you have really thought about the issue.
F
frobert
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are simply being asked to support your position.
If you cannot do that, you ought not be posting your thoughts on this forum, frobert.
You have been asked by the inspired author to “always give a reason” for your position. (See 1 Peter 3:15).
That’s all that is being asked of you here by all of us.
Give the reason for your views.
F
frobert
Guest
I usually would not respond because I do not wish to put anyone in a negative light, but out of deference to your senior status I am responding. I asked the poster a specific question providing examples of what I was interested in. He answered with a general question totally ignoring my question. I responded with an answer, and asked again requesting elaboration as I apparently missed something. As you refer to him as inspired perhaps it is my inability to comprehend at his level. He dismissed my answer as meaningless hmmmmmmm. What am I to think when a poster rejects my question twice, and provides nothing of value in return for my answers except more rejections. I am not blessed with the inspired ability as some posters but when I believe my time is being misused I attempt to bow our gracefully as I did with you earlier. In effect I am being accused of the identical treatment I received.
Peace
P
PRmerger
Guest
:tiphat:
Yep. That’s the way it works in a forum.
sigh.
I don’t think you have been reading very closely.
I did not refer to Stephen as inspired.
I said that St. Peter is the inspired author. I even gave the Scriptural reference.
I think you should read your Bible a bit more, and then you would be familiar with the command to which I was referring. From St. Peter. Who is an inspired writer. Not Stephen.
“Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope”–1 Peter 3:14.
Again, the inspired author is none other than St. Peter.
Stephen168
New member
Actually you started your post with:
Then you asked some questions. I could tell by your questions that you in fact did miss something in my analogy. So to get us started working together through my analogy, I asked you a question. Hoping with your answer of same specific inequality in law that we could have a common place to start.
You answered “fairness.” Maybe I should have taken more time to explain but fairness it not an answer. It is so vague that it is meaningless. What specifically is a point in law that is unfair?
When I asked you to be more specific, you basically checked out. So it seems that you either don’t know enough about the issue to give me an example that we can work with or after reading your above post maybe you really didn’t want to understand my analogy at all. Only you know.
Had you given a specific answer, and allowed me to clarify my analogy, I would have been happy to answer your questions if they hadn’t been answered yet.
F
frobert
Guest
You are correct I was not familiar with to your reference of St Peter.
Is there a forum rule that one MUST respond to a poster’s question?
F
frobert
Guest
I think we did get off on a wrong turn but this is exactly the tit for tat that I wish to avoid. I will review the question you asked and may get back to you as time permits as I am traveling over the next couple of days.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, there is no forum rule that you MUST respond to a poster’s question.
But one must be willing to dialogue in order to post here.
Many a poster has been banned who made it clear that she was unable or unwilling to engage in discussion.
The general culture here, frobert is this: you pose your opinion. People respond to it either by agreeing with it, disagreeing with it, or asking you to give some support for your opinion.
When people disagree with you, a mature individual does not take it personally.
When people ask you to give some reasons for your opinion, it is part of forum etiquette to respond to their request.
When people ask you to support your claim (let’s say you say, “A pope once said that Mary was a goddess!”), it is not good form to say, “I don’t really care if you don’t believe me! That’s what I was once told. If you want to find out, google it yourself!”
Note: I am not saying that you are an example of any of the above.
I am simply offering some examples of what is good form and what is not.
If you post here, however, please be prepared to have some folks disagree with you. Some folks will agree with you. Some folks will ask for more information.
It is good etiquette to respond.
It is never a mature thing to leave in a huff because someone asked you to support your claim or opinion.
In fact, you are commanded to support your beliefs by the inspired author.
(Who is not someone one this forum.
)
F
frobert
Guest
Thank you. I hope that the same etiquette is expected by both parties and that unduly criticism is frowned upon.No, there is no forum rule that you MUST respond to a poster’s question.
But one must be willing to dialogue in order to post here.
Many a poster has been banned who made it clear that she was unable or unwilling to engage in discussion.
The general culture here, frobert is this: you pose your opinion. People respond to it either by agreeing with it, disagreeing with it, or asking you to give some support for your opinion.
When people disagree with you, a mature individual does not take it personally.
When people ask you to give some reasons for your opinion, it is part of forum etiquette to respond to their request.
When people ask you to support your claim (let’s say you say, “A pope once said that Mary was a goddess!”), it is not good form to say, “I don’t really care if you don’t believe me! That’s what I was once told. If you want to find out, google it yourself!”
Note: I am not saying that you are an example of any of the above.
I am simply offering some examples of what is good form and what is not.
If you post here, however, please be prepared to have some folks disagree with you. Some folks will agree with you. Some folks will ask for more information.
It is good etiquette to respond.
It is never a mature thing to leave in a huff because someone asked you to support your claim or opinion.
In fact, you are commanded to support your beliefs by the inspired author.
(Who is not someone one this forum.
F
frobert
Guest
I think you are aware of the Windsor case but if not let me refresh your memory. Windsor is the 85-year-old widow challenged the Defense of Marriage Act after her spouse died and leaving her with a tax bill over $300,000. The case was heard in Supreme Court and the Justices ruled on the basis of fairness and equality. (Don’t take my word, look it up). For Ms Windsor fairness gave her the same right to her wife’s her wife’s estate. A married man and woman would not have needed a Supreme Court decision to inherit.
You may argue that Ms. Windsor was already married so the example does not exactly fit you question about a marriage license. So let me give you a personal experience. I hadn’t wanted to do this because after many years it is still quite painful. Before there was such a thing in the US as SS marriage, my partner and I had decided to adopt. We found an agency which was at first open and we went through a six month process that any married couple would normally go through. The last step in the process is a home study which takes a full day and many interviews. We received a glowing report and were waiting for a match. We were asked if we would except 2 brothers from a minority group, a 9 year old and a 12 year old. You can imagine how hard it would be to place such brothers who had a fair amount of problems but we were willing. We were told it was just a matter of the Board approving our application at their monthly meeting, its usually just a rubber stamp. Well the meeting came and went. When we did not hear from the agency for 2 weeks I made several phone calls was given a run-around but finally reached the Social Worker who conducted the home study and was told that regrettably our application was denied because we were not a married. Because we had no marriage license we had no legal recourse in the courts. So when you say fairness is meaningless you can understand my hostility over such ignorance.
I hope the brothers we were ready to adopt were able to overcome the obstacles and found a good home. I am one of the thousands of SS couples who were denied the opportunity to raise a family. Thankfully that is changing because contrary to you belief fairness and equality are meaningful. Every legal case is being won on the issue of fairness and equality. If you truly want information what they stand for look up the individual court cases.
I am asking once again that you examine the NYS marriage license and tell me how that effects you personally.
Personally, I don’t expect a fair response from either you or PRmerger because from what I have read of your posts you are unable to get over the issues you have with civil SS marriage. Hopefully I misjudged you.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Be careful, frobert.
What you say is bordering on being uncharitable.
It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so it would be a shame for you to be banned.
Clearly, you haven’t thought through your position on homosexuality, and once you are asked to defend it, you can see that it is untenable.
There is no need to be uncharitable in order to discuss.
If I were unable to give “fair response(s)” I would never have been able to make it here as a Forum Elder, with almost 25,000 posts to my name, with nary an infraction or warning from the Moderators.
Stop taking things so personally and learn how to dialogue with people who ask you to support your opinions.
- Status