S
seakelp
Guest
Well, not really. Corporate personhood has been a feature of corporations for some time.And corporations weren’t people until 2010.
- Status
S
seakelp
Guest
Yeah, but that’s what older generations all said because Elvis was on TV, or because kids smoked dope and moved to California. I’m young, but I’m optimistic. America is a strong country, full of talented and courageous people. We’ll manage.
J
JimG
Guest
I think that corporations were always classified as ‘corporate persons’ or ‘corporate entities’ to enable them to act as a single entity rather than as a collection of individuals. But that’s neither here nor there. We could turn them all into LLC’s but I’m sure there are other legal considerations involved.And corporations weren’t people until 2010.
Could I trade corporate structure for a true marital structure?
J
josh987654321
Guest
You missed my point, a hetrosexual union where both parties are able to procreate are able to perform in healthy sexual relations, the other hetrosexual unions are unable to procreate, yet can still perform in healthy sexual relations or not at all due to injury, the homosexual union is unable to perform in healthy sexual relations, so therefore it is wrong to encourage them to perform in unhealthy sexual relations and therefore should never be recognised as a marriage.
“Scientifically Controversial” are you serious? what’s so scientifically controversial about a homosexual couple performing unhealthy sexual activities? how do these unhealthy sexual acts suddenly become healthy sexual acts? I don’t have to go into detail about the nature of homosexuality and why it’s disordered and immoral do I?
No, No, No, don’t be naive Rossum, the two are very linked, who do you think will be required to perform or be envolved in these civil marriages? who will have to teach same sex marriage in schools? who will be required to have some kind of envolvement with same sex civil marriage?
If hetrosexuality and homosexuality are seen as equal with regards to the law, on what grounds will we be able to discriminate between them? will “religious beliefs” be accpetable to disobey such a law in discriminating against homosexuality?
A Christian Adoption agency already had to comply regardless of their beliefs.
Your right though the USSC is not being asked to decide christian doctrine, but neither was Rome when they introduced a law that was Ignorant to religion, It’s just stupidity to be Ignorant of religion when implementing such a law as same sex marriage, to change the definition of the word ‘marriage’ and expect christians to just comply with it because the law say’s so.
Thank you for reading
Josh
J
JimG
Guest
And I sincerely hope that you will manage! Perhaps chaos is not yet inevitable if the younger generation is really intent on saving civilization. The question is, is it?
D
Dawnia
Guest
Except that the 14th only applies to race. Women tried to use the 14th to get equal rights and SCOTUS shot that down. It took a separate amendment to fix that issue.
The attorney seemed completely lost as to an answer. Not sure if they just hadn’t thought about it, or he was just surprised by the question.
S
seakelp
Guest
Whoaaaaa…I think you need to go back and rethink that. Sex-based classifications are evaluated under the 14A’s “intermediate scrutiny” standard.
And the ERA did not pass, thanks to the South.
Yeah, I was sort of surprised. Olson got caught up in that, he should’ve just given an answer and moved on.The attorney seemed completely lost as to an answer. Not sure if they just hadn’t thought about it, or he was just surprised by the question.
D
Dawnia
Guest
Totally agree.
D
Dawnia
Guest
Maybe I should have clarified…the 14th didn’t apply to women until after the 19th was enacted. Look it up…it’s fascinating history.
D
Dawnia
Guest
I think Scalia was messing with him a bit too.
R
rossum
Guest
You will need to provide scientific evidence of “unhealthy”. I will not accept religious reasons for a civil law definition. There are many countries and states with same sex marriage, so you should be able to provide data.
Heterosexual intercourse is more likely to transmit disease than homosexual lesbian intercourse. What definition of “unhealthy” are you using?
State employed officials. Just as marriages between divorcees are performed by state employed officials now.
Teachers. State employed teachers will have to follow the mandated curriculum. Private schools will have more flexibility.
Any who wish to. Everyone has some involvement with homosexuality at the moment, or do you live in a tiny community and not meet anyone from outside it? How many people went to your school? How many of them were homosexual? If you assume 5% on average are gay then school with 1,000 pupils would have 50 gay pupils; 1 or 2 in every class of 30.
Within limits, yes. The church that refused to marry a couple on racial grounds was within its legal rights to do so. Churches have a bye on discrimination laws. The Catholic Church has a bye on equal opportunity legislation for women; it does not have to employ women priests.
What churches cannot do is to discriminate in non-church activities. If a parish needs an accountant, then it cannot say “No women need apply”.
An adoption agency which was accepting state funds. If the state is providing funds, then the agency has to follow the rules for using those funds. Gays paid taxes to provide those funds, and can reasonably expect a service in return. If the agency doesn’t want to comply then it should refuse the state funds.
rossum
S
seakelp
Guest
Apologies - you’re quite right.
S
seakelp
Guest
Thank you!
As far as saving civilization, I really don’t know. That’s an interesting question I’ve never really thought of, but that I promise to meditate on. I’ll have to get back to you someday.
J
JimG
Guest
It’s a question, I think, that most people have not thought of, even though we live in an age on the cusp of civilizational collapse. Wait a few decades and it won’t require any thought, as we will already be living in the next dark age brought about by civilizational collapse. To get a preview of where we are headed, I recommend Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization,” and Mary Eberstadt’s “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” which surveys the statistics of the detritus of the sexual revolution. Or see some of the books recommended by Arandur in Post #10 of the “France” thread.Thank you!
As far as saving civilization, I really don’t know. That’s an interesting question I’ve never really thought of, but that I promise to meditate on. I’ll have to get back to you someday.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
D
Dawnia
Guest
triangulaphobia is really hard to say. :coolinoff:
J
JimG
Guest
Just call it “geometry equality.” The analogy is good.
Just because we have 3 sides doesn’t mean we can’t be rectangles!
J
josh987654321
Guest
Instead of ‘unhealthy’ try ‘disordered and immoral’
How on earth can you view the acts of homosexuality as something that society should be encouraging and accepting?
Homosexuality and hetrosexuality are two very different things, why would you treat them equally? there is no equality between the physical make up of a man and a women, it’s madness!
I mean didn’t you learn this in primary school, that a male and female are physically very different? why would you give the word ‘marriage’ to two completely different unions? it’s illogical, what are you thinking Rossum?
Private schools like you said would have to give up all governemnt funding in order to have ‘freedom of religion’, and how about the poor family who cannot afford to send their kids to a private school? will they be required to submit, will ‘freedom of religion’ be acceptable for the poor who rely on government funding?
Thank you for reading
Josh
J
JimG
Guest
Taking your last paragraph, once same sex marriage is approved, giving up government funding just won’t protect anyone. Catholic teaching will in effect have been criminalized. Employers, even religious employers, will have to provide benefits for same sex couples, making them cooperate in evil. Hotels, restaurants, photographers, any public accomodation, will be sued and perhaps criminally charged, for refusing to treat same sex couples exactly the same as opposite sex couples.
Even now, there are numerous lawsuits pending against this administration for attempts to violate religious liberty. It will get worse. Religious persecution will be inevitable once same sex ‘marriage’ becomes generally accepted in law.
C
CaptFun
Guest
- Status