Archive

Bishop Watterson teacher fired after being outed in obituary

  • sherm03
    QuakerOats;1433480 wrote:Comical.

    Why not develop new descriptors when a new phenomenom evolves, or are we too shallow to do so; hence we instead hijack an existing word and attempt to alter its definition to fit our political 'thinking'. Naw, doesn't really work that way.
    Why have two words that mean the exact same thing when you can have one word?

    It's amazing to me that people will say, "I have no problem with two gay people that are in a relationship living together, receiving legal benefits, receiving medical benefits...but don't you dare try to call that relationship a marriage. That's where I draw the line!" Do you realize how absolutely retarded that sounds?!
  • Con_Alma
    sherm03;1433482 wrote:OK...let's say that this year there is a proposal on the ballot to legalize gay marriage. Would you personally vote to legalize it, or would you vote against it?
    Neither of those choices are my desire. I would rather the State get out of the marriage sanctioning business. I'll let those whom desire it be one way or another vote.
  • Con_Alma
    Gblock;1433484 wrote:laws change all the time..legal definitions especially...what is your point. human understanding and ways of thinking does too. i dont think/feel the same way about many things as i did when i was 15.
    Is this for me? If laws change then we follow the new on. They haven't changed yet. Maybe someday but not today as it relates to this issue.
  • Heretic
    sherm03;1433485 wrote:Why have two words that mean the exact same thing when you can have one word?

    It's amazing to me that people will say, "I have no problem with two gay people that are in a relationship living together, receiving legal benefits, receiving medical benefits...but don't you dare try to call that relationship a marriage. That's where I draw the line!" Do you realize how absolutely retarded that sounds?!
    Apparently, you're "shallow" when you think that two things that are ONLY different in that one is man/woman and the other is man/man or woman/woman should have the same term...but not when you think they should have totally different words even though there is only that difference.

    The comedy keeps coming.
  • sherm03
    Con_Alma;1433487 wrote:Neither of those choices are my desire. I would rather the State get out of the marriage sanctioning business. I'll let those whom desire it be one way or another vote.
    So you're saying that you don't want the State to recognize anyone as being married and would rather marriage strictly be a religious bond?
  • Gblock
    Con_Alma;1433488 wrote:Is this for me? If laws change then we follow the new on. They haven't changed yet. Maybe someday but not today as it relates to this issue.
    the word still fits in my opinion were talking about whether to legalize gay "marriage". the comical part is the way that hetero sexuals stomp on the institution of marriage and have no respect for it. divorce is at an all-time high, but when gays want to get married,now the sactity of the word is important. even the definition of the word lol
  • Con_Alma
    sherm03;1433490 wrote:So you're saying that you don't want the State to recognize anyone as being married and would rather marriage strictly be a religious bond?
    Nope. I didn't say that at all.

    I'd rather the recognition from the State come from a relationship contract between the two parties.

    I have not mentioned religion at all.
  • Con_Alma
    Gblock;1433491 wrote:the word still fits in my opinion were talking about whether to legalize gay "marriage". the comical part is the way that hetero sexuals stomp on the institution of marriage and have no respect for it. divorce is at an all-time high, but when gays want to get married,now the sactity of the word is important. even the definition of the word lol
    The word doesn't fit fom a legal perspective as we stand today if the gender is removed from the understanding of the definition. It may someday but it doesn't today.
  • Gblock
    Con_Alma;1433497 wrote:The word doesn't fit fom a legal perspective as we stand today if the gender is removed from the understanding of the definition. It may someday but it doesn't today.
    the legal perspective has no bearing on my view. whats right is right regardless of how long it takes the laws this country to catch up. ie. the treatment of women and blacks come to mind. there were lots of people who knew the proper definition of citizen, or who should be allowed to vote, or who should not be deemed as property before the laws recognized things. doesnt change the definition of what they are trying to do which is get "married" which would be defined as formalizing or legalizing said union
  • Con_Alma
    Gblock;1433500 wrote:the legal perspective has no bearing on my view. whats right is right regardless of how long it takes the laws this country to catch up. ie. the treatment of women and blacks come to mind. there were lots of people who knew the proper definition of citizen, or who should be allowed to vote, or who should not be deemed as property before the laws recognized things. doesnt change the definition of what they are trying to do which is get "married" which would be defined as formalizing or legalizing said union
    I am not suggesting that the legal perspective has bearing on your view or not. Whether you view it as right or wrong has no bearing on what it means to get married in Ohio.

    Getting married in order to legalize a relationship in the State of Ohio brings into play the gender of the two individuals... as it currently stands. That may not always be the case but today it is. One cannot get married in the State of Ohio with another that has a similar gender and have it be legalized.
  • Gblock
    i was talking about my view of the definition of marriage..not my personal stance on the issue
  • cruiser_96
    Gblock;1433500 wrote:the legal perspective has no bearing on my view. whats right is right regardless of how long it takes the laws this country to catch up. ie. the treatment of women and blacks come to mind. there were lots of people who knew the proper definition of citizen, or who should be allowed to vote, or who should not be deemed as property before the laws recognized things. doesnt change the definition of what they are trying to do which is get "married" which would be defined as formalizing or legalizing said union
    Is this based on how you view things? Or is there some sort of absolute right that we must all adhere to?
  • Gblock
    cruiser_96;1433504 wrote:Is this based on how you view things? Or is there some sort of absolute right that we must all adhere to?
    i dont care either way...i was just saying how laws change and whatever is "right" this week may not be "right" next week...we each have to decide. he seemed to be saying he was waiting for the law to decide if two gay people forming a union could be defined as a marriage. other states say yes, ohio says no. right or wrong i feel the definition fits...i really have no opinion if it is right or wrong because it doesnt effect me. marriage sux, let them learn the hard way i say
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    Let's not lose sight of the fact that this woman knew she was taking a chance by signing the morality contract dishonestly. Dishonest because she knew that she was promising not to partake of certain activities while employed by the church. She put herself in the position to be one annonomous phone call away from termination.

    An employee at Scotts - that forbids its employees to smoke entirely faces a similar situation. One can say that Scotts is unfair to regulate someones's life away from work. But the bottom line is if you disagree, you shouldn't work there.
  • Gblock
    and i totally get those who are against it. my mother would be one. i dont even try to argue or change peoples mind on the issue because if you are a religious type you are no doubt against homosexuality in general so surely you would be against gay marriage. i guess i would say tho why do you care either way? if they want to get married how does it effect you?? if someone wants to pay the state to recognize their union whats the big deal? if anything it provides more stability and economic growth than it hurts anything.
  • Con_Alma
    Gblock;1433503 wrote:i was talking about my view of the definition of marriage..not my personal stance on the issue
    Yes, I understand that. I am talking about the State of Ohio's definition which is really what matters to those seeking to have it changed.
  • Gblock
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1433510 wrote:Let's not lose sight of the fact that this woman knew she was taking a chance by signing the morality contract dishonestly. Dishonest because she knew that she was promising not to partake of certain activities while employed by the church. She put herself in the position to be one annonomous phone call away from termination.

    An employee at Scotts - that forbids its employees to smoke entirely faces a similar situation. One can say that Scotts is unfair to regulate someones's life away from work. But the bottom line is if you disagree, you shouldn't work there.
    hard to argue with that. but now they are saying that its not because she's gay but that she is living in sin or having sex without being married. how many are guilty of this? i guess she did make a choice by making it public and thus forcing their hand so to speak because im quite sure they already knew she was gay
  • cruiser_96
    Gblock;1433505 wrote:i dont care either way...i was just saying how laws change and whatever is "right" this week may not be "right" next week...we each have to decide. he seemed to be saying he was waiting for the law to decide if two gay people forming a union could be defined as a marriage. other states say yes, ohio says no. right or wrong i feel the definition fits...i really have no opinion if it is right or wrong because it doesnt effect me. marriage sux, let them learn the hard way i say
    I think the underlined portion is were I differ with some folks on here. To say that it doesn't effect you may very well be a true statement. However, to base the rightness or wrongness (or even the accept-abilty) on this fact doesn't sit well with me.

    There are any number of occurence that happen over a 24 hour period that do not effect me. However, I would venture to say that some of those things are wrong.

    I think this is one of the main areas that needs to be discussed before moving on... absolute vs. relative right and wrong.
  • Con_Alma
    Gblock;1433505 wrote:... he seemed to be saying he was waiting for the law to decide if two gay people forming a union could be defined as a marriage. other states say yes, ohio says no. right or wrong i feel the definition fits...i really have no opinion if it is right or wrong because it doesnt effect me. marriage sux, let them learn the hard way i say
    I am not waiting for the law to change at all. Two people forming a legal union isn't defined as a marriage in Ohio. I don't have to decide that and am not waiting for the law to change to decide that.
  • Gblock
    In addition, Ohio law says that any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of the state, has no legal force or effect, is void ab initio (null from the beginning) and will not be recognized.

    doesnt say it doesnt fit the definition just that they refuse to recognize it.

    kinda like this guy from high school that i beat up after school one day. to this day he continues not to recognize the a$$ beating and still tells people that me and my friends jumped him. this doesnt change the fact that it happened or that people got "married" albeit in another state.
  • Devils Advocate
  • cruiser_96
    Or a squid! I think squirting people with ink would be a cool ability. However, the advantages and use of 8 "arms" at once cannot be overstated.
  • Heretic
    cruiser_96;1433537 wrote:Or a squid! I think squirting people with ink would be a cool ability. However, the advantages and use of 8 "arms" at once cannot be overstated.
    Just move up to kraken. You're also mythical then and can take out entire luxury cruise ships with ease.
  • Gblock
  • Tiernan
    Gblock;1433519 wrote:kinda like this guy from high school that i beat up after school one day. to this day he continues not to recognize the a$$ beating and still tells people that me and my friends jumped him.
    Yeah...sure ya did. I'm pretty sure you and your friends jumped him.