The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?
Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?
I'm kind of surprised Roberts is the writer of the dissenting opinion. I really figured that he wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history with this one. Of course, in history he will get credit for the judgement because "his" court made the decision.
But yes, some of this court's decisions have been very questionable- so I thought that the dissenting opinion (which was basically "we aren't making a judgement about gay marriage, we are judging whether we can tell states how to define marriage") had a very good chance of being the majority opinion.
So I am a Republican who is totally for gay marriage, and I applaud the decision of the court.
I am wondering where this moves the debate (if there even can be one) in the future or at the very least for this coming election cycle amongst the Republican contenders.
Is there a point where they do not have to cater to the hard core religious right on this issue because it is already settled, or am I just being naive and hopeful.
So I am a Republican who is totally for gay marriage, and I applaud the decision of the court.
I am wondering where this moves the debate (if there even can be one) in the future or at the very least for this coming election cycle amongst the Republican contenders.
Is there a point where they do not have to cater to the hard core religious right on this issue because it is already settled, or am I just being naive and hopeful.
Take a look at how Rowe V. Wade has been marginalized in many states with what many (including me) view as unconstitutional laws that intentionally limit access to healthcare for women, and you have your answer. I think this is not the end of the discussion nor the far Right's fight against equality for everyone.
So I am a Republican who is totally for gay marriage, and I applaud the decision of the court.
I am wondering where this moves the debate (if there even can be one) in the future or at the very least for this coming election cycle amongst the Republican contenders.
Is there a point where they do not have to cater to the hard core religious right on this issue because it is already settled, or am I just being naive and hopeful.
Take a look at how Rowe V. Wade has been marginalized in many states with what many (including me) view as unconstitutional laws that intentionally limit access to healthcare for women, and you have your answer. I think this is not the end of the discussion nor the far Right's fight against equality for everyone.
So I am a Republican who is totally for gay marriage, and I applaud the decision of the court.
I am wondering where this moves the debate (if there even can be one) in the future or at the very least for this coming election cycle amongst the Republican contenders.
Is there a point where they do not have to cater to the hard core religious right on this issue because it is already settled, or am I just being naive and hopeful.
Take a look at how Rowe V. Wade has been marginalized in many states with what many (including me) view as unconstitutional laws that intentionally limit access to healthcare for women, and you have your answer. I think this is not the end of the discussion nor the far Right's fight against equality for everyone.
Judge Moore (Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court) has already said that prior federal court rulings on this issue do not apply to Alabama and has prohibited officials from issuing same-sex marriage licenses--in open violation of the federal court ruling. He said something like federal courts don't have any jurisdiction over Alabama. Which should be impeachible on the grounds of incompetence...
The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration.However, anyone going out of their way to make it more difficult for people to do something that is (going to be) within the law is bullshit and I agree with you.
Congratulations America!
I will admit to formerly being prejudiced against individuals with a same-sex orientation. I am embarrassed at my old, uninformed, and wrongheaded perspective. I have been amazed at how quickly the nation has undergone the same transformation that I had. I'm very proud of us today. We finally did something that should have been done a long time ago. But our ability to change for the better, even if stubbornly slow, is one of the best features of our nation. I know that many people are not on board with this decision yet. But I also know that those fears and prejudices will fade with time.QuoteThe arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
― Martin Luther King Jr.
So I am a Republican who is totally for gay marriage, and I applaud the decision of the court.
I am wondering where this moves the debate (if there even can be one) in the future or at the very least for this coming election cycle amongst the Republican contenders.
Is there a point where they do not have to cater to the hard core religious right on this issue because it is already settled, or am I just being naive and hopeful.
Take a look at how Rowe V. Wade has been marginalized in many states with what many (including me) view as unconstitutional laws that intentionally limit access to healthcare for women, and you have your answer. I think this is not the end of the discussion nor the far Right's fight against equality for everyone.
Judge Moore (Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court) has already said that prior federal court rulings on this issue do not apply to Alabama and has prohibited officials from issuing same-sex marriage licenses--in open violation of the federal court ruling. He said something like federal courts don't have any jurisdiction over Alabama. Which should be impeachible on the grounds of incompetence...
Technically it does not fully go into effect for about another three weeksQuoteThe ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration.However, anyone going out of their way to make it more difficult for people to do something that is (going to be) within the law is bullshit and I agree with you.
So I am a Republican who is totally for gay marriage, and I applaud the decision of the court.
I am wondering where this moves the debate (if there even can be one) in the future or at the very least for this coming election cycle amongst the Republican contenders.
Is there a point where they do not have to cater to the hard core religious right on this issue because it is already settled, or am I just being naive and hopeful.
Take a look at how Rowe V. Wade has been marginalized in many states with what many (including me) view as unconstitutional laws that intentionally limit access to healthcare for women, and you have your answer. I think this is not the end of the discussion nor the far Right's fight against equality for everyone.
Judge Moore (Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court) has already said that prior federal court rulings on this issue do not apply to Alabama and has prohibited officials from issuing same-sex marriage licenses--in open violation of the federal court ruling. He said something like federal courts don't have any jurisdiction over Alabama. Which should be impeachible on the grounds of incompetence...
Technically it does not fully go into effect for about another three weeksQuoteThe ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration.However, anyone going out of their way to make it more difficult for people to do something that is (going to be) within the law is bullshit and I agree with you.
Just to clarify, Moore's actions were in response to a prior federal court ruling earlier this year that pertained to Alabama specifically. Moore's actions were clearly illegal. The federal court had ruled. I do not know what Moore will do going forward now that SCOTUS has ruled, further enforcing the right to marry in Alabama.
Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?The last 15 years haven't been good for lovers of individual liberty in the U.S., so...you know...crap shoot. I'm so glad for this ruling.
http://www.theonion.com/article/nations-homophobic-bigots-pack-it-50766
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.
The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
I know many former republicans in the bay or southern Ca that now claim no party, are democrats or claim independent because they did not want to be associated with the anti-gay, anti-women, anti-non-Christian group. Most are pro-gun and fiscally conservative, but believe everyone deserves equal rights. I actually worry that I am going to end up in the Green Party because some of the local offices are too conservative for me.So I am a Republican who is totally for gay marriage, and I applaud the decision of the court.
I am wondering where this moves the debate (if there even can be one) in the future or at the very least for this coming election cycle amongst the Republican contenders.
Is there a point where they do not have to cater to the hard core religious right on this issue because it is already settled, or am I just being naive and hopeful.
Take a look at how Rowe V. Wade has been marginalized in many states with what many (including me) view as unconstitutional laws that intentionally limit access to healthcare for women, and you have your answer. I think this is not the end of the discussion nor the far Right's fight against equality for everyone.
Sadly I started thinking about the same thing after I hit the "post" button. I wish there was a better outlet or group that I could identify with that is a strange mix of political beliefs that fits more with my ideals and leaves out the craziness I see in the hard core religious right.
If you are excited about the Supreme Court's marriage ruling today, express it with tolerance to those religious minorities that believe that marriage is best expressed as a union of a man and a woman.How about if I just support your right to marry an opposite-sex person with equal fervor and we'll call it good.
If you are excited about the Supreme Court's marriage ruling today, express it with tolerance to those religious minorities that believe that marriage is best expressed as a union of a man and a woman.
If you are excited about the Supreme Court's marriage ruling today, express it with tolerance to those religious minorities that believe that marriage is best expressed as a union of a man and a woman.
There is NOTHING in this ruling that says practitioners of any religion must marry same-sex couples. Churches are free to continue doing as they wish.
This says that marriage is a constitutional right, and that a STATE must recognize marriage between same sex couples.
If you are excited about the Supreme Court's marriage ruling today, express it with tolerance to those religious minorities that believe that marriage is best expressed as a union of a man and a woman.
To the extent that church officials are blessed with the power of the state to give legal effect to marriages, allowing them to opt out of ratifying marriages on the basis of the gender of the participants does potentially raise constitutional concerns, although not ones discussed in the decision.
The priest who married me could have refused to do so if I told him I took birth control. I'm pretty sure a state official could not have refused me a marriage license for the same reason. And the church could have refused me if I was a Muslim, so already churches can discriminate against protected classes when choosing who to marry. I had to be a member of the church, and marrying a Christian. I really don't see this decision affecting church ceremonies.
To the extent that church officials are blessed with the power of the state to give legal effect to marriages, allowing them to opt out of ratifying marriages on the basis of the gender of the participants does potentially raise constitutional concerns, although not ones discussed in the decision. I won't say those issues have a clear resolution in US constitutional law, but the arguments aren't frivolous.
Do couples really ask a priest they've never met to perform a ceremony for them?Yes, this happens. Especially if the priest has a really pretty church. My sister got married in a church we had never been in before by a priest she met just to get married. She also priest shopped because she wanted a priest who would let her non-Catholic, but Christian, father-in-law conduct the ceremony. She was able to find one who said he could do everything but one small part of the ceremony that he felt made it official as a sacrament.
This is something that confuses me. It's the state that grants the marriage certificate, not the priest. It's the state that recognizes the union legally. You don't even need a priest to perform the ceremony (I didn't have one when I married my wife). At what point is the marriage "ratified" by a priest? Blessed maybe, presided over yes, but nothing else. Is this different in various states?
Just to clarify, Moore's actions were in response to a prior federal court ruling earlier this year that pertained to Alabama specifically. Moore's actions were clearly illegal. The federal court had ruled. I do not know what Moore will do going forward now that SCOTUS has ruled, further enforcing the right to marry in Alabama.
... so already churches can discriminate against protected classes when choosing who to marry....
I should have explained this more clearly, but yes, in many jurisdictions, religious officials are granted the power of the state to solemnise marriages. The fact that applicants can choose to use somebody else will certainly be an argument that is raised in the eventual litigation on this topic, if it comes up. In my post, I did not purport to write a dissertation on the merits of this issue under US law. I did not discuss which constitutional provisions might be relevant or what the arguments would be for or against. That was intentional because it was a very brief post. With these clarifications in mind, I think my earlier post should be more clear.
Point the second: If Christians want tolerance, perhaps they should try giving some out once in a while.
Religious officials have always been allowed to refuse to marry people, no? The catholic priest in the church in which I was raised refused to marry my sister to her Jewish husband because he wouldn't promise to raise any kids catholic. Likewise, he wouldn't marry my divorced brother to my divorced sister in law (neither had annulments). LDS bishops aren't forced to marry Muslims, etc.
How is this any different?
Point the second: If Christians want tolerance, perhaps they should try giving some out once in a while.
Christians are extremely tolerant compared to other religions.
Christians are extremely tolerant compared to other religions. You'll notice that the typical Christian doesn't burn down Temples and Mosques. Christians don't round up people of other religions and stone them to death in the street. I understand that you apparently disagree with certain aspects of certain Christian denominations' beliefs, but let's be honest here.
Point the second: If Christians want tolerance, perhaps they should try giving some out once in a while.
Christians are extremely tolerant compared to other religions.
Oooh, let's make a list of all the ways this is wrong.
I'll start: "other religions" is a very broad category, one that includes many religions that are far more tolerant than Christianity. Maybe you meant to say "compared to some religions"?
Christians are extremely tolerant compared to other religions. You'll notice that the typical Christian doesn't burn down Temples and Mosques. Christians don't round up people of other religions and stone them to death in the street.
This is not a particularly strong argument. For centuries, states discriminated on the basis of gender in deciding whether to licence a marriage. That lengthy history did not prevent the Court from ruling that it was unconstitutional. The constitutionality of the current marriage solemnisation laws in various states is not a simple issue in law.
Point the second: If Christians want tolerance, perhaps they should try giving some out once in a while.
Christians are extremely tolerant compared to other religions. You'll notice that the typical Christian doesn't burn down Temples and Mosques. Christians don't round up people of other religions and stone them to death in the street. I understand that you apparently disagree with certain aspects of certain Christian denominations' beliefs, but let's be honest here.
Point the second: If Christians want tolerance, perhaps they should try giving some out once in a while.
Christians are extremely tolerant compared to other religions.
Oooh, let's make a list of all the ways this is wrong.
I'll start: "other religions" is a very broad category, one that includes many religions that are far more tolerant than Christianity. Maybe you meant to say "compared to some religions"?
Point the second: If Christians want tolerance, perhaps they should try giving some out once in a while.
Christians are extremely tolerant compared to other religions. You'll notice that the typical Christian doesn't burn down Temples and Mosques. Christians don't round up people of other religions and stone them to death in the street. I understand that you apparently disagree with certain aspects of certain Christian denominations' beliefs, but let's be honest here.
People are flooding Twitter saying that since same-sex marriage is legal in the US, they are moving to Canada. Boy are they going to be surprised when they get there...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-legal-there#.kwmenzVn2
Maybe Saudi Arabia is a better destination.
People are flooding Twitter saying that since same-sex marriage is legal in the US, they are moving to Canada. Boy are they going to be surprised when they get there...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-legal-there#.kwmenzVn2
Maybe Saudi Arabia is a better destination.
God, if they think it's bad *here*, imagine what a living hell it's going to be when they go to Canada, realize that same-sex marriage is legal there, too, and that they'll also have to give up most of their firearms and put up with high-quality, socialized health care. The horror!!!
This is not a particularly strong argument. For centuries, states discriminated on the basis of gender in deciding whether to licence a marriage. That lengthy history did not prevent the Court from ruling that it was unconstitutional. The constitutionality of the current marriage solemnisation laws in various states is not a simple issue in law.
States did this, and it was unconstitutional. Churches are NOT states.
Point the second: If Christians want tolerance, perhaps they should try giving some out once in a while.
Christians are extremely tolerant compared to other religions. You'll notice that the typical Christian doesn't burn down Temples and Mosques. Christians don't round up people of other religions and stone them to death in the street. I understand that you apparently disagree with certain aspects of certain Christian denominations' beliefs, but let's be honest here.
I realize that many Christians are very tolerant - most in fact are wonderful people. People in general are wonderful people, regardless of faith. If you yourself feel that you are tolerant then I wont doubt it.
Since you brought it up however, let's look at some of the atrocities committed in history by the tolerant Christians. I'm sure we could come up with an equally long list of atrocities for all religions.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
Add to the list the fact that some Christians refuse to allow any two people to marry based on their sexual orientation because their beliefs don't allow it. That's a textbook definition of intolerance. I'm very happy to be on the side of fairness, love, and equality.
Plus there's that whole Library of Alexandria burning by Christians, arguably the single greatest setback to human progress ever perpetrated by anyone. Thanks Christians!
Point the second: If Christians want tolerance, perhaps they should try giving some out once in a while.
Christians are extremely tolerant compared to other religions. You'll notice that the typical Christian doesn't burn down Temples and Mosques. Christians don't round up people of other religions and stone them to death in the street. I understand that you apparently disagree with certain aspects of certain Christian denominations' beliefs, but let's be honest here.
I realize that many Christians are very tolerant - most in fact are wonderful people. People in general are wonderful people, regardless of faith. If you yourself feel that you are tolerant then I wont doubt it.
Since you brought it up however, let's look at some of the atrocities committed in history by the tolerant Christians. I'm sure we could come up with an equally long list of atrocities for all religions.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
Add to the list the fact that some Christians refuse to allow any two people to marry based on their sexual orientation because their beliefs don't allow it. That's a textbook definition of intolerance. I'm very happy to be on the side of fairness, love, and equality.
The 20th century list you provided for Christians is pretty short compared to ISIS. Also, Christians tend to condemn those sort of acts (as do non-Christians for the most part).
I could care less if homosexuals want to get married. That being said, if a minister has a religious objection to marrying someone, that should be respected. My own parents had an issue because my father was previously divorced. Tolerance of opposing beliefs is a 2 way street.
People are flooding Twitter saying that since same-sex marriage is legal in the US, they are moving to Canada. Boy are they going to be surprised when they get there...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-legal-there#.kwmenzVn2
Maybe Saudi Arabia is a better destination.
God, if they think it's bad *here*, imagine what a living hell it's going to be when they go to Canada, realize that same-sex marriage is legal there, too, and that they'll also have to give up most of their firearms and put up with high-quality, socialized health care. The horror!!!
HAHA maybe they can go to Mexica... oh wait...
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/23/mexico-legalizes-same-sex-marriage-marriage-not-for-procreation/
It seems that the USA is lagging in this area.
Tolerance of opposing beliefs is a 2 way street. I don't belittle others for their different beliefs, other religions or non-religions should do the same.
I realize that many Christians are very tolerant - most in fact are wonderful people. People in general are wonderful people, regardless of faith. If you yourself feel that you are tolerant then I wont doubt it.
Since you brought it up however, let's look at some of the atrocities committed in history by the tolerant Christians. I'm sure we could come up with an equally long list of atrocities for all religions.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
Add to the list the fact that some Christians refuse to allow any two people to marry based on their sexual orientation because their beliefs don't allow it. That's a textbook definition of intolerance. I'm very happy to be on the side of fairness, love, and equality.
The 20th century list you provided for Christians is pretty short compared to ISIS. Also, Christians tend to condemn those sort of acts (as do non-Christians for the most part).
I could care less if homosexuals want to get married. That being said, if a minister has a religious objection to marrying someone, that should be respected. My own parents had an issue because my father was previously divorced. Tolerance of opposing beliefs is a 2 way street.
You REALLY believe that all Muslims are perfectly fine with what ISIS is doing? When was the last time you publicly condemned The Army of God, Eastern Lightning, The Lord's Resistance Army, The National Liberation Front of Tripura, etc etc etc?
ISIS was created by the United States - a primarily Christian nation - by creating a war through lies and misinformation. That's a really bad example to use if you want to prove how wonderful Christians are.
Tolerance of opposing beliefs is a 2 way street. I don't belittle others for their different beliefs, other religions or non-religions should do the same.
The difference here is that only one side is actively trying to prohibit the other side from enjoying the same rights that they do.
People are flooding Twitter saying that since same-sex marriage is legal in the US, they are moving to Canada. Boy are they going to be surprised when they get there...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-legal-there#.kwmenzVn2
Maybe Saudi Arabia is a better destination.
God, if they think it's bad *here*, imagine what a living hell it's going to be when they go to Canada, realize that same-sex marriage is legal there, too, and that they'll also have to give up most of their firearms and put up with high-quality, socialized health care. The horror!!!
Quote from: SparafusileYou REALLY believe that all Muslims are perfectly fine with what ISIS is doing? When was the last time you publicly condemned The Army of God, Eastern Lightning, The Lord's Resistance Army, The National Liberation Front of Tripura, etc etc etc?
I never said or inferred they did. In fact I went as far as to say, most non-Christians (Muslims are included in that) condemn them as well.
ISIS was created by the United States - a primarily Christian nation - by creating a war through lies and misinformation. That's a really bad example to use if you want to prove how wonderful Christians are.
The US is not, in the name of Christianity, killing Muslims. ISIS, on the other hand, is.
Blaming ISIS on the US is a stretch. Blaming ISIS on Christianity is ridiculous.
So I am a Republican who is totally for gay marriage, and I applaud the decision of the court.
I am wondering where this moves the debate (if there even can be one) in the future or at the very least for this coming election cycle amongst the Republican contenders.
Is there a point where they do not have to cater to the hard core religious right on this issue because it is already settled, or am I just being naive and hopeful.
Lindsey Graham (S.C.) quickly pledged not to pursue “a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail” against the Supreme Court’s decision, but rather to commit himself “to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans.” Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said that “good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side.” Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) said he disagreed with the decision but recognized that the country had to “abide by the law.”
Gov. Scott Walker (Wis.) called for an amendment to the Constitution to “reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.” Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee called the ruling “judicial tyranny.” And Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal offered, well, this:
Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.
This decision will pave the way for an all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf2dg05Eqj1qzwaddo1_500.png)
Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?
I'm kind of surprised Roberts is the writer of the dissenting opinion. I really figured that he wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history with this one. Of course, in history he will get credit for the judgement because "his" court made the decision.
But yes, some of this court's decisions have been very questionable- so I thought that the dissenting opinion (which was basically "we aren't making a judgement about gay marriage, we are judging whether we can tell states how to define marriage") had a very good chance of being the majority opinion.
Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?
I'm kind of surprised Roberts is the writer of the dissenting opinion. I really figured that he wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history with this one. Of course, in history he will get credit for the judgement because "his" court made the decision.
But yes, some of this court's decisions have been very questionable- so I thought that the dissenting opinion (which was basically "we aren't making a judgement about gay marriage, we are judging whether we can tell states how to define marriage") had a very good chance of being the majority opinion.
Well, I think that people at the Federal level are starting to realize "Hey, the states HAD their chance and they cocked it up. So now we have to clean up their mess". I expect more and more trending toward these types of decisions. A good thing, IMO.
Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?
I'm kind of surprised Roberts is the writer of the dissenting opinion. I really figured that he wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history with this one. Of course, in history he will get credit for the judgement because "his" court made the decision.
So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states. I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.
It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court? I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults. Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.
So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states. I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.
It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court? I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults. Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.
If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.
Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile. And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states. I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.
It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court? I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults. Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.
If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.
Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it. So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage? Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?
Please forgive the ignorance but can you give me the cliff notes version of how/why Roberts is the Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. Is it voted on amongst justices, is it just luck based on when you were appointed, I can't imagine it is based on seniority cause I know other justices have been there longer.
Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?
I'm kind of surprised Roberts is the writer of the dissenting opinion. I really figured that he wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history with this one. Of course, in history he will get credit for the judgement because "his" court made the decision.
Please forgive the ignorance but can you give me the cliff notes version of how/why Roberts is the Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. Is it voted on amongst justices, is it just luck based on when you were appointed, I can't imagine it is based on seniority cause I know other justices have been there longer.
Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile. And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states. I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.
It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court? I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults. Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.
If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.
Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it. So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage? Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?
I realize that many Christians are very tolerant - most in fact are wonderful people. People in general are wonderful people, regardless of faith. If you yourself feel that you are tolerant then I wont doubt it.
Since you brought it up however, let's look at some of the atrocities committed in history by the tolerant Christians. I'm sure we could come up with an equally long list of atrocities for all religions.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
Add to the list the fact that some Christians refuse to allow any two people to marry based on their sexual orientation because their beliefs don't allow it. That's a textbook definition of intolerance. I'm very happy to be on the side of fairness, love, and equality.
The 20th century list you provided for Christians is pretty short compared to ISIS. Also, Christians tend to condemn those sort of acts (as do non-Christians for the most part).
I could care less if homosexuals want to get married. That being said, if a minister has a religious objection to marrying someone, that should be respected. My own parents had an issue because my father was previously divorced. Tolerance of opposing beliefs is a 2 way street.
You REALLY believe that all Muslims are perfectly fine with what ISIS is doing? When was the last time you publicly condemned The Army of God, Eastern Lightning, The Lord's Resistance Army, The National Liberation Front of Tripura, etc etc etc?
I never said or inferred they did. In fact I went as far as to say, most non-Christians (Muslims are included in that) condemn them as well.ISIS was created by the United States - a primarily Christian nation - by creating a war through lies and misinformation. That's a really bad example to use if you want to prove how wonderful Christians are.
The US is not, in the name of Christianity, killing Muslims. ISIS, on the other hand, is.
Blaming ISIS on the US is a stretch. Blaming ISIS on Christianity is ridiculous.
You could substitute "bi-racial" marriage for "gay marriage" and come up with the same argument, you know.So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states. I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.
It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court? I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults. Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.
Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it. So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage? Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?
Name one, that does not come from a religion.Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile. And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states. I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.
It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court? I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults. Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.
If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.
Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it. So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage? Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?
When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license. I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.
I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.
Name one, that does not come from a religion.Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile. And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states. I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.
It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court? I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults. Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.
If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.
Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it. So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage? Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?
When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license. I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.
I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.
Name one, that does not come from a religion.Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile. And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states. I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.
It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court? I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults. Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.
If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.
Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it. So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage? Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?
When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license. I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.
I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.
They will not have the same ability to bring more new, little taxpayers into the world, for one.
The US is more than 80% Christian AND a democracy. So the USA is in fact a "Christian Nation". And when we go bombing the Middle East, it is in fact an act of Christian aggression. Or, do you think that Iraq and Afghanistan are thinking to themselves "Why are our Muslim brothers in the USA bombing us?". No, they are thinking "Why are the western Christians bombing us". So, ipso facto, we DID create ISIS.
Of course as a None's, I wash my hands of the whole stinking mess.
You don't have to be fertile to get married. As I stated, some states require you to infertile to get married. That is not a harm to society.Name one, that does not come from a religion.Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile. And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states. I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.
It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court? I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults. Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.
If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.
Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it. So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage? Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?
When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license. I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.
I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.
They will not have the same ability to bring more new, little taxpayers into the world, for one.
You don't have to be fertile to get married. As I stated, some states require you to infertile to get married. That is not a harm to society.Name one, that does not come from a religion.Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile. And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states. I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.
It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court? I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults. Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.
If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.
Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it. So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage? Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?
When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license. I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.
I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.
They will not have the same ability to bring more new, little taxpayers into the world, for one.
This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf2dg05Eqj1qzwaddo1_500.png)
This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage. That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.
Did anyone really think they would rule otherwise?
I'm kind of surprised Roberts is the writer of the dissenting opinion. I really figured that he wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history with this one. Of course, in history he will get credit for the judgement because "his" court made the decision.
Please forgive the ignorance but can you give me the cliff notes version of how/why Roberts is the Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. Is it voted on amongst justices, is it just luck based on when you were appointed, I can't imagine it is based on seniority cause I know other justices have been there longer.
GW Bush nominated him to the Chief Justice position. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/roberts.nomination/
Name one, that does not come from a religion.Actually some states do allow first cousins to get married, some only if one member of the couple is infertile. And there are benefits to society to keep cousins from breeding.So now gay people can be as miserable as straight married people in all states. I predict a booming divorce lawyer trade within a year.
It occurs to me to wonder: how long before bigamists/polygamists demand their day in Supreme Court? I hear bitter suggestions that NAMBLA types will be pleading their case as well soon, but they do not have all parties involved as freely consenting adults. Bigamists/polygamists presumably do.
If SCOTUS had moved against Gay Marriage on religious infringement grounds, then I think they would have opened themselves up a lot more to the bigamist/polygamist, since those have traditionally been religiously sanctioned.
Equal rights was the basis of the ruling as I crudely understand it. So why should the State turn away more than two parties who wish to be in the same marriage? Why should states refuse to allow first cousins to marry? Does it not infringe upon those people's rights?
When I got my marriage license some years ago I had to be able to truthfully state that I was not intoxicated, syphilitic or about to marry someone closer than my third cousin in order to receive said license. I imagine that quite a number of states have similar requirements.
I am sure there are plenty of people who would still today argue that society would benefit by keeping same sex couples from marrying, so I can't say I find that argument convincing.
They will not have the same ability to bring more new, little taxpayers into the world, for one.
But they will in fact be able to provide a good home though adoption to children that might otherwise end up orphanages, in broken homes, or on the street. So fewer juvenile delinquents, more happy homes, and more teaching kids to grow up to be responsible adults and contributing members of society. So win-win-win-win-win.
This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage. That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.
Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.
If you want to be a bigot, that sometimes comes with backlash. I won't shop at places owned by bigots. That has nothing to do with your religion, it has to do with you being a bigot. Just because you want to hide behind your religion as an excuse does not change the fact, bigot.This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage. That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.
This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage. That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.
Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.
This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.
I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom. If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc. But would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.
Just because you want to hide behind your religion as an excuse does not change the fact, bigot.
Actually race is a pretty good equivalent. Both are caused by genetics influenced by environment (some of that being within the womb as the environment) and have no actual negative or positive features based on those genetics.This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage. That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.
Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.
This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.
I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom. If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc. But would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.
Actually race is a pretty good equivalent. Both are caused by genetics influenced by environment (some of that being within the womb as the environment) and have no actual negative or positive features based on those genetics.This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage. That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.
Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.
This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.
I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom. If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc. But would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.
What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.
- eating shell fish
- getting tattooed
- masturbating
- watching porn
- gossiping
- eating too much
- playing football
- working every day of the week
Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.
Forcing private citizens to do things that are against their deeply held personal or religious beliefs? Not so much.
Forcing private citizens to do things that are against their deeply held personal or religious beliefs? Not so much.
I mostly agree with everything you said, but I'd like to discuss this statement for a moment. This is just a thought exercise and isn't directed at you personally. I have two hypothetical scenarios:
1) What if it was my deeply held person belief that I didn't want to pay taxes any more - would that be acceptable? I'm a surgeon and it's my deeply held personal belief that my patients never receive blood transfusions and several of my patients (who do not share that belief) have died because of it. Is that acceptable? How about this - it is my deeply held personal belief that everybody with blue eyes is really the devil and I decide to start shooting them in the street. Hopefully that's not acceptable.
Now my next scenario:
2) A group of people come into power in the government that decide that it is not acceptable to eat sushi any more. I happen to love sushi, but ok, I can live with that. Next the same group of people decide that it's not acceptable to buy any type of shoe except Converse (chosen at random). Probably not a big deal, but may be a little annoying. Finally, the same group of people decide that any one that's not of Scandinavian descent can no longer attend college. That's probably going to be a problem.
Both of these were taken to the extreme to illustrate a point. Now let's extrapolate this into the current topic.
1) I'm Christian and I believe that people that fall in love with someone of the same sex is not able to be seen as equal under the law and are therefor not allowed to get married.
2) I'm gay and the government says that I'm not allowed to visit the love of my life in the hospital or have a decision on whether to pull the plug.
Notice that in all of my #1 scenarios, the person holding the belief drastically affects people that don't hold that belief. All of my #2 scenarios the person being affected is powerless to change the circumstances that happen to be repressive. So my opinion is that you should NOT be able to act on any belief that you have. If it doesn't affect anybody other than yourself in your own house then YES do whatever you want. But when people's beliefs start becoming law that's a huge problem for me.
Actually race is a pretty good equivalent. Both are caused by genetics influenced by environment (some of that being within the womb as the environment) and have no actual negative or positive features based on those genetics.This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage. That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.
Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.
This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.
I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom. If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc. But would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.
But of course a homosexual always has the option of STFU and pretend to be straight in public. If they are white or Asian, poof! No discrimination. Not saying it is right, but it is an important distinction when attempting to equate being gay with being, say, black.
Like I said, mostly I could not give a flying reproductive act with the baked good of your choice (I am open minded) about any of this. I am white, straight, very married and have kids I am raising in a house in the burbs. I live my life and everyone else lives theirs. What I don't care for is the ever-increasing central gubmint control of damn near everything and if you don't agree things get rammed down your throat even if it means you lose teeth in the process. Should the state discriminate on who it grants marriage licenses to? As far as I am concerned, what consenting adults choose to do with their lives is up to them, whether that means single, conventional marriage, gay marriage, marrying a close relative, bigamy, whatever. Forcing private citizens to do things that are against their deeply held personal or religious beliefs? Not so much.
Actually race is a pretty good equivalent. Both are caused by genetics influenced by environment (some of that being within the womb as the environment) and have no actual negative or positive features based on those genetics.This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage. That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.
Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.
This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.
I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom. If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc. But would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.
But of course a homosexual always has the option of STFU and pretend to be straight in public. If they are white or Asian, poof! No discrimination. Not saying it is right, but it is an important distinction when attempting to equate being gay with being, say, black.
Like I said, mostly I could not give a flying reproductive act with the baked good of your choice (I am open minded) about any of this. I am white, straight, very married and have kids I am raising in a house in the burbs. I live my life and everyone else lives theirs. What I don't care for is the ever-increasing central gubmint control of damn near everything and if you don't agree things get rammed down your throat even if it means you lose teeth in the process. Should the state discriminate on who it grants marriage licenses to? As far as I am concerned, what consenting adults choose to do with their lives is up to them, whether that means single, conventional marriage, gay marriage, marrying a close relative, bigamy, whatever. Forcing private citizens to do things that are against their deeply held personal or religious beliefs? Not so much.
Ah, the small government argument. Well, in this case you should be very happy, because the government had ALREADY overstepped by not allowing gay people to marry and thus were infringing their rights. This ruling REMOVED that government over reach. So, Yay Small Government!
The true libertarian position on marriage would be that the state should not be in the business of licensing interpersonal relationships. (The phrase "true libertarian" is used with intentional jest.) If people want to enter into an agreement regarding their joint dealings, the instrument for that is a contract. Currently, many rights associated with marriage are statutory and can't be obtained through contract, but in a libertarian post-marriage world, those statutory rights would not exist, so that wouldn't be an issue.
Actually race is a pretty good equivalent. Both are caused by genetics influenced by environment (some of that being within the womb as the environment) and have no actual negative or positive features based on those genetics.This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage. That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.
Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.
This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.
I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom. If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc. But would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.
But of course a homosexual always has the option of STFU and pretend to be straight in public. If they are white or Asian, poof! No discrimination. Not saying it is right, but it is an important distinction when attempting to equate being gay with being, say, black.
Like I said, mostly I could not give a flying reproductive act with the baked good of your choice (I am open minded) about any of this. I am white, straight, very married and have kids I am raising in a house in the burbs. I live my life and everyone else lives theirs. What I don't care for is the ever-increasing central gubmint control of damn near everything and if you don't agree things get rammed down your throat even if it means you lose teeth in the process. Should the state discriminate on who it grants marriage licenses to? As far as I am concerned, what consenting adults choose to do with their lives is up to them, whether that means single, conventional marriage, gay marriage, marrying a close relative, bigamy, whatever. Forcing private citizens to do things that are against their deeply held personal or religious beliefs? Not so much.
Ah, the small government argument. Well, in this case you should be very happy, because the government had ALREADY overstepped by not allowing gay people to marry and thus were infringing their rights. This ruling REMOVED that government over reach. So, Yay Small Government!
But this is an issue I mostly don't care about. Want a list of hideous gubmint interference in everyday life that is unnecessary and repugnant? We might be here a while...
Actually race is a pretty good equivalent. Both are caused by genetics influenced by environment (some of that being within the womb as the environment) and have no actual negative or positive features based on those genetics.This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage. That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.
Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.
This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.
I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom. If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc. But would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.
But of course a homosexual always has the option of STFU and pretend to be straight in public. If they are white or Asian, poof! No discrimination. Not saying it is right, but it is an important distinction when attempting to equate being gay with being, say, black.
Like I said, mostly I could not give a flying reproductive act with the baked good of your choice (I am open minded) about any of this. I am white, straight, very married and have kids I am raising in a house in the burbs. I live my life and everyone else lives theirs. What I don't care for is the ever-increasing central gubmint control of damn near everything and if you don't agree things get rammed down your throat even if it means you lose teeth in the process. Should the state discriminate on who it grants marriage licenses to? As far as I am concerned, what consenting adults choose to do with their lives is up to them, whether that means single, conventional marriage, gay marriage, marrying a close relative, bigamy, whatever. Forcing private citizens to do things that are against their deeply held personal or religious beliefs? Not so much.
Ah, the small government argument. Well, in this case you should be very happy, because the government had ALREADY overstepped by not allowing gay people to marry and thus were infringing their rights. This ruling REMOVED that government over reach. So, Yay Small Government!
But this is an issue I mostly don't care about. Want a list of hideous gubmint interference in everyday life that is unnecessary and repugnant? We might be here a while...
You are welcome to start another thread. In THIS thread I'm going to be happy that you lost the argument and most of the members actively disagreed with your views. That, IMO, is progress.
Actually race is a pretty good equivalent. Both are caused by genetics influenced by environment (some of that being within the womb as the environment) and have no actual negative or positive features based on those genetics.This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage. That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.
Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.
This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.
I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom. If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc. But would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.
But of course a homosexual always has the option of STFU and pretend to be straight in public. If they are white or Asian, poof! No discrimination. Not saying it is right, but it is an important distinction when attempting to equate being gay with being, say, black.
Like I said, mostly I could not give a flying reproductive act with the baked good of your choice (I am open minded) about any of this. I am white, straight, very married and have kids I am raising in a house in the burbs. I live my life and everyone else lives theirs. What I don't care for is the ever-increasing central gubmint control of damn near everything and if you don't agree things get rammed down your throat even if it means you lose teeth in the process. Should the state discriminate on who it grants marriage licenses to? As far as I am concerned, what consenting adults choose to do with their lives is up to them, whether that means single, conventional marriage, gay marriage, marrying a close relative, bigamy, whatever. Forcing private citizens to do things that are against their deeply held personal or religious beliefs? Not so much.
Ah, the small government argument. Well, in this case you should be very happy, because the government had ALREADY overstepped by not allowing gay people to marry and thus were infringing their rights. This ruling REMOVED that government over reach. So, Yay Small Government!
But this is an issue I mostly don't care about. Want a list of hideous gubmint interference in everyday life that is unnecessary and repugnant? We might be here a while...
You are welcome to start another thread. In THIS thread I'm going to be happy that you lost the argument and most of the members actively disagreed with your views. That, IMO, is progress.
That seems a tad petty, no? You love Cathy's view even though it squares with mine and then give me a hard time. Hmmm...
I could care less what the majority or anyone in particular thinks. We each live by our own lights.
Actually race is a pretty good equivalent. Both are caused by genetics influenced by environment (some of that being within the womb as the environment) and have no actual negative or positive features based on those genetics.This whole complaint that equal marriage rights somehow impinges on religious freedom just slays me. In what possible way is anyone's religious freedom impeded by granting others rights? Would the argument hold that if I decided that my religion told me that blacks were inferior, and therefore must be treated as second-class citizens? How can freedom for one person take away another's freedom? Unless these "religious freedom" cranks are somehow being forced to marry within their sex their argument is just so bogus.
I think that it is mostly a way to say that they don't approve of same sex marriage. That said, given numerous cases where people (mostly bakers, for whatever reason) are forced to supply stuff for same sex marriages or else be sued/ruined even though it goes against their deeply held beliefs, I can see at least some of the argument.
Again, substitute "black" for "same sex" and see if your argument still holds.
This is not about race, so leave it be with the straw person.
I personally don't care who wishes to marry whom. If nothing else, it will give the social scientists endless fodder for studying things like divorce rates, comparisons to conventional marriages on things like health, income, etc. But would have a much easier time living and let live if I felt like the same courtesy were extended all around.
But of course a homosexual always has the option of STFU and pretend to be straight in public. If they are white or Asian, poof! No discrimination. Not saying it is right, but it is an important distinction when attempting to equate being gay with being, say, black.
Like I said, mostly I could not give a flying reproductive act with the baked good of your choice (I am open minded) about any of this. I am white, straight, very married and have kids I am raising in a house in the burbs. I live my life and everyone else lives theirs. What I don't care for is the ever-increasing central gubmint control of damn near everything and if you don't agree things get rammed down your throat even if it means you lose teeth in the process. Should the state discriminate on who it grants marriage licenses to? As far as I am concerned, what consenting adults choose to do with their lives is up to them, whether that means single, conventional marriage, gay marriage, marrying a close relative, bigamy, whatever. Forcing private citizens to do things that are against their deeply held personal or religious beliefs? Not so much.
Ah, the small government argument. Well, in this case you should be very happy, because the government had ALREADY overstepped by not allowing gay people to marry and thus were infringing their rights. This ruling REMOVED that government over reach. So, Yay Small Government!
But this is an issue I mostly don't care about. Want a list of hideous gubmint interference in everyday life that is unnecessary and repugnant? We might be here a while...
You are welcome to start another thread. In THIS thread I'm going to be happy that you lost the argument and most of the members actively disagreed with your views. That, IMO, is progress.
That seems a tad petty, no? You love Cathy's view even though it squares with mine and then give me a hard time. Hmmm...
I could care less what the majority or anyone in particular thinks. We each live by our own lights.
Cathy is mocking.... oh never mind.
And, BTW, if you don't care what anyone thinks, why are you posting here? Hell, if you really don't care what anyone thinks, why are you even READING this thread full of other people's opinions?
The one with the highest ratio of original thought to quoted text wins.
But of course ahomosexualbigot always has the option of STFU and pretend to bestraighta decent human in public.
Forcing them to take personal actions that do not square with their beliefs (e.g. presiding at a homosexual marriage ceremony) is where I get all 2nd Amendment/well regulated militia/the tree of freedom is watered with the blood of tyrants.
Quote from: SparafusileYou REALLY believe that all Muslims are perfectly fine with what ISIS is doing? When was the last time you publicly condemned The Army of God, Eastern Lightning, The Lord's Resistance Army, The National Liberation Front of Tripura, etc etc etc?
I never said or inferred they did. In fact I went as far as to say, most non-Christians (Muslims are included in that) condemn them as well.
Reading comprehension failure on my part. My apologies.ISIS was created by the United States - a primarily Christian nation - by creating a war through lies and misinformation. That's a really bad example to use if you want to prove how wonderful Christians are.
The US is not, in the name of Christianity, killing Muslims. ISIS, on the other hand, is.
Blaming ISIS on the US is a stretch. Blaming ISIS on Christianity is ridiculous.
I believe we are both getting way off topic here. If you'd like to continue a civil discussion, let us take this to a new thread. Otherwise, thank you for your point of view.
Forcing them to take personal actions that do not square with their beliefs (e.g. presiding at a homosexual marriage ceremony) is where I get all 2nd Amendment/well regulated militia/the tree of freedom is watered with the blood of tyrants.
We've already settled this argument in America. You lost.
This exact argument was used by people who owned segregated lunch counters. They claimed it was their religious right to refuse service to black people, and the government was infringing their rights by forcing desegregation on them. They openly defied the new laws.
I don't see how refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is any different than refusing to serve lunch to black people. We've already determined that a business owner does not have the right to discriminate against individuals even for personal religious reasons. Get over it.
We will have to agree to disagree. See you at the ballot box...
QuoteI should have explained this more clearly, but yes, in many jurisdictions, religious officials are granted the power of the state to solemnise marriages. The fact that applicants can choose to use somebody else will certainly be an argument that is raised in the eventual litigation on this topic, if it comes up. In my post, I did not purport to write a dissertation on the merits of this issue under US law. I did not discuss which constitutional provisions might be relevant or what the arguments would be for or against. That was intentional because it was a very brief post. With these clarifications in mind, I think my earlier post should be more clear.
Religious officials have always been allowed to refuse to marry people, no? The catholic priest in the church in which I was raised refused to marry my sister to her Jewish husband because he wouldn't promise to raise any kids catholic. Likewise, he wouldn't marry my divorced brother to my divorced sister in law (neither had annulments). LDS bishops aren't forced to marry Muslims, etc.
How is this any different?
We will have to agree to disagree. See you at the ballot box...
Just so we're clear, you're really arguing that a business owner has the right to refuse service to someone based solely on their skin color or sexual orientation?
Polygamy is outlawed because it is almost always exploitative and harmful to women. Hippies say otherwise, but hippies are generally wrong about pretty much everything.
Polygamy is outlawed because it is almost always exploitative and harmful to women. Hippies say otherwise, but hippies are generally wrong about pretty much everything.
I've noticed that you like to make huge sweeping and overbroad statements about things. Perhaps you might consider that there are many different kinds of people within categories of people. And your own opinions (even if informed by your experience) are unlikely to hold true for others.
I would be surprised if concern for women had anything to do with laws against polygamy. That may have been used as political cover for the policy. But religious considerations and social norms are among the primary reasons.
Polygamy is outlawed because it is almost always exploitative and harmful to women. Hippies say otherwise, but hippies are generally wrong about pretty much everything.
I've noticed that you like to make huge sweeping and overbroad statements about things. Perhaps you might consider that there are many different kinds of people within categories of people. And your own opinions (even if informed by your experience) are unlikely to hold true for others.
I would be surprised if concern for women had anything to do with laws against polygamy. That may have been used as political cover for the policy. But religious considerations and social norms are among the primary reasons.
Go read about Fundamentalist Mormons and see if your opinion stays the same. Throughout history, that's pretty much been how polygamy works.
Quote from: SparafusileYou REALLY believe that all Muslims are perfectly fine with what ISIS is doing? When was the last time you publicly condemned The Army of God, Eastern Lightning, The Lord's Resistance Army, The National Liberation Front of Tripura, etc etc etc?
I never said or inferred they did. In fact I went as far as to say, most non-Christians (Muslims are included in that) condemn them as well.
Reading comprehension failure on my part. My apologies.ISIS was created by the United States - a primarily Christian nation - by creating a war through lies and misinformation. That's a really bad example to use if you want to prove how wonderful Christians are.
The US is not, in the name of Christianity, killing Muslims. ISIS, on the other hand, is.
Blaming ISIS on the US is a stretch. Blaming ISIS on Christianity is ridiculous.
I believe we are both getting way off topic here. If you'd like to continue a civil discussion, let us take this to a new thread. Otherwise, thank you for your point of view.
That's fine. Might I suggest that when you infer blame to the Christian religion for ills of the world which most current day adherents have nothing to do with (KKK, the crusades, and ISIS for example), you should expect a response. Inferring those things to all Christians is like blaming all Muslims for terrorism or all African Americans for problems in the inner city.
... the Supreme Court finally got around to ... the concept that gender ... is irrelevant to competent adults' right[s] ...
I certainly agree that it is wrong to blame all Christians. That said, the simple fact is that it has been the Christians who have long promoted an agenda of hatred and state-supported discrimination against gays. You can't really expect people to overlook that just to spare the feelings of their co-religionists.
1) Christianity is not the only religion to oppose same sex marriage.
2) I didn't expect anybody to ignore the issue, but some of the things being brought up went way beyond the issue at hand in my opinion.
I am not part of your argument, but I have never heard of any. Could you direct me to some information? Your examples, bible and Quran don't have the best history with women either.Polygamy is outlawed because it is almost always exploitative and harmful to women. Hippies say otherwise, but hippies are generally wrong about pretty much everything.
I've noticed that you like to make huge sweeping and overbroad statements about things. Perhaps you might consider that there are many different kinds of people within categories of people. And your own opinions (even if informed by your experience) are unlikely to hold true for others.
I would be surprised if concern for women had anything to do with laws against polygamy. That may have been used as political cover for the policy. But religious considerations and social norms are among the primary reasons.
Go read about Fundamentalist Mormons and see if your opinion stays the same. Throughout history, that's pretty much been how polygamy works.
That doesn't address either of my points. In the 1800s, people (largely Christians) didn't like Mormons, persecuted them, and succeeded at sequestering them in the desert. As part of the persecution, and in accordance with their social norms and religious beliefs, they also used the law to ban this Mormon practice. How women were treated under that system was likely irrelevant (as it has tended to be historically). Women weren't even allowed to vote.
And there's been a lot of polygamy that treated women relatively well. It's not just a Mormon practice--it's in the Bible and Quran too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism
I think "polygamy" as a term has a bad history in that the term is mostly associated with practices that oppressed women and children.
However, the concept of a relationship with more than two consenting adults is obviously not inherently oppressive. If three or more people voluntary enter into a loving relationship, I don't see why that is any of our concern. I am sure there are many healthy plural relationships in existence right now in every state in the USA. Many of those people are likely atheists or otherwise not affiliated with religions popularly associated with "polygamy". We just don't hear about it as much because people in such relationships are widely discriminated against (including through criminal sanctions), similar to how we didn't used to hear much about gay people.
2) I didn't expect anybody to ignore the issue, but some of the things being brought up went way beyond the issue at hand in my opinion.
Tolerance is the ENTIRE issue here. It was a Christian in this thread that claimed that no Christian had ever burn down a temple or a mosque, stoned anybody in the streets, or beheaded somebody in public in order to prove they were more tolerant. After I showed otherwise, they changed the rules to only include things in the 20th century. Okay then:
Christians destroy mosques: http://shoebat.com/2015/03/18/christians-destroy-almost-all-of-the-mosques-in-central-africa/
Christian stoning gay man to death: http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-18/news/29142081_1_stoning-death-court-documents-police
Christian beheads man: http://shoebat.com/2015/05/29/christian-man-sick-and-tired-of-christians-being-killed-by-muslims-takes-isis-terrorist-and-beheads-him/
The second story is perfectly relevant to this topic. Please, just stop killing people in the name of God and instead treat them as equal. Do unto other as you would have them do for God's sake!
2) I didn't expect anybody to ignore the issue, but some of the things being brought up went way beyond the issue at hand in my opinion.
Tolerance is the ENTIRE issue here. It was a Christian in this thread that claimed that no Christian had ever burn down a temple or a mosque, stoned anybody in the streets, or beheaded somebody in public in order to prove they were more tolerant.
After I showed otherwise, they changed the rules to only include things in the 20th century. Okay then:
Christians destroy mosques: http://shoebat.com/2015/03/18/christians-destroy-almost-all-of-the-mosques-in-central-africa/
Christian stoning gay man to death: http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-18/news/29142081_1_stoning-death-court-documents-police
Christian beheads man: http://shoebat.com/2015/05/29/christian-man-sick-and-tired-of-christians-being-killed-by-muslims-takes-isis-terrorist-and-beheads-him/
The second story is perfectly relevant to this topic. Please, just stop killing people in the name of God and instead treat them as equal. Do unto other as you would have them do for God's sake!
The original comment, not mine, indicated the typical christian didn't perform those actions. I think we could infer that we are talking about a typical Christian in the US since we are discussing same sex marriage in the US. Given that, I've seen very little evidence to the contrary in this thread (including the examples below) that the typical US Christian is performing any of those actions (beheadings, stonings or mosque burnings). I've also seen little or no evidence that the typical Christian worldwide is performing those actions.
You are correct, the 2nd article does sum up the issue perfectly. A lunatic killed this innocent man because he was gay. Although this murderer claimed the bible told him to do it, he was just another nut. I didn't see anything about Christians or the Christian religion defending this lunatic for killing someone. The situation is only related to the Christian religion in that this murderer used the Bible as an excuse for his actions. Christians certainly didn't tolerate this murderer.
If you want to make an argument that certain republicans are idiots for proposing a constitutional amendment on same sex marriage in the name of Christianity, I'll agree with you. If you want to argue that protesting homosexuality at military funerals in the name of religion is wrong, I'll agree with you.
However, using stories such as the above indict an entire religion for the act of a lunatic are over reaching.
The original comment, not mine, indicated the typical christian didn't perform those actions. I think we could infer that we are talking about a typical Christian in the US since we are discussing same sex marriage in the US. Given that, I've seen very little evidence to the contrary in this thread (including the examples below) that the typical US Christian is performing any of those actions (beheadings, stonings or mosque burnings). I've also seen little or no evidence that the typical Christian worldwide is performing those actions.
You are correct, the 2nd article does sum up the issue perfectly. A lunatic killed this innocent man because he was gay. Although this murderer claimed the bible told him to do it, he was just another nut. I didn't see anything about Christians or the Christian religion defending this lunatic for killing someone. The situation is only related to the Christian religion in that this murderer used the Bible as an excuse for his actions. Christians certainly didn't tolerate this murderer.
If you want to make an argument that certain republicans are idiots for proposing a constitutional amendment on same sex marriage in the name of Christianity, I'll agree with you. If you want to argue that protesting homosexuality at military funerals in the name of religion is wrong, I'll agree with you.
However, using stories such as the above indict an entire religion for the act of a lunatic are over reaching.
I love that you avoid my first point. So now we can only talk about Christians in the 20th century, that live in the US, and are not insane. You're ending up with a pretty small pool of people.
We will have to agree to disagree. See you at the ballot box...
Just so we're clear, you're really arguing that a business owner has the right to refuse service to someone based solely on their skin color or sexual orientation?
Nice straw man. Does he also scare away crows?
Nope, I am simply suggesting that the rights of homosexuals (or anyone else) are not absolute. We will need to figure out ways to square the right to express religious views (you know, that old freedom of speech and religion thing) with the rights of homosexuals to marry (and other rights).
When you continue to bring in the KKK (and the kitchen sink) into the argument that Christianity is intolerant, I think the commentary has jumped the shark.
We will have to agree to disagree. See you at the ballot box...
Just so we're clear, you're really arguing that a business owner has the right to refuse service to someone based solely on their skin color or sexual orientation?
Nice straw man. Does he also scare away crows?
Nope, I am simply suggesting that the rights of homosexuals (or anyone else) are not absolute. We will need to figure out ways to square the right to express religious views (you know, that old freedom of speech and religion thing) with the rights of homosexuals to marry (and other rights). A failure to do so will be very messy over time. I foresee an election season backlash, personally. After that, who knows? I don't know what the answer is in reconciling all of this and Merica being Merica, I assume the line will be redrawn/wiggle all over the map over time. And we will probably get it wrong most of the time. But I think it is very foolish to simply ignore the conflict and the quite legitimate issues both sides have with this.
When you continue to bring in the KKK (and the kitchen sink) into the argument that Christianity is intolerant, I think the commentary has jumped the shark.
Here's a relevant quote from Frank Ancona, the president of a Virginia Ku Klux Klan group: "We are a Christian organization". It doesn't get much clearer than that. The KKK is the face of intolerance in the United States. The KKK is a Christian organization. This is relevant because, like the blacks before the civil rights movement, the gays were persecuted and shunned by self identified Christians. Denying what should be a human right to a group of people based on a belief you have is intolerant. I don't care if you personally were intolerant, I'm talking about Christianity as a whole.
It may seem like I'm tossing the kitchen sink into the ring and calling it a day, but that's not the case. I've only started to scratch the surface of all the intolerant acts committed in the name of Christianity. Here are a few more I haven't mentioned: Eradication of Native Americans, the vandalism and destruction of mosques following 9/11 (there is evidence this happened in 31 states), and the persecution and murder of Jews throughout time. The list goes on and on and I will too if you think those don't count for some reason.
In at least two states, you must believe in a God in order to run for office. Who do you think put that law in place? In Arkansas, non-theists are legally disqualified from bearing witness in court despite it being against the constitution. In a recent study, almost 50% of Christian parents said they would disprove if their child married an Atheist. Only a quarter of them said they would disprove if the same child married a black person.
If Christians were as tolerant as you say they are, these things wouldn't happen!
Nice straw man. Does he also scare away crows?
Really? I thought it was pretty pertient. I said the US already had a civil rights movement that determined that business owners do not have the right to discriminate against people, and you said you disagreed, so I was asking for clarification before eviscerating you for being ignorant of history. You know, as a courtesy. In case you wanted to rephrase your opposition to civil rights.
Unless I misunderstood, you think a baker has the right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or a lunch counter does have the right to refuse to serve black people. If I'm wrong please correct me. Otherwise I'm about to call you unpleasant names.QuoteNope, I am simply suggesting that the rights of homosexuals (or anyone else) are not absolute. We will need to figure out ways to square the right to express religious views (you know, that old freedom of speech and religion thing) with the rights of homosexuals to marry (and other rights).
I'm sure you understand the difference between the right to express your opinion (also not an absolute) and the right to discriminate against somebody by actively denying them the same services and benefits that you enjoy. You are totally allowed to believe that black people are an inferior subhuman race, and I will even (begrudgingly) defend your right to say so in public. You are not allowed to make them sit in the back of the bus because of your beliefs. See the difference?
When you continue to bring in the KKK (and the kitchen sink) into the argument that Christianity is intolerant, I think the commentary has jumped the shark.
Here's a relevant quote from Frank Ancona, the president of a Virginia Ku Klux Klan group: "We are a Christian organization". It doesn't get much clearer than that. The KKK is the face of intolerance in the United States. The KKK is a Christian organization. This is relevant because, like the blacks before the civil rights movement, the gays were persecuted and shunned by self identified Christians. Denying what should be a human right to a group of people based on a belief you have is intolerant. I don't care if you personally were intolerant, I'm talking about Christianity as a whole.
"Yeah, but I PERSONALLY don't know any Christians like that, so therefore it's all a bunch of nuts that aren't 'Real Christians'."
The KKK representing the Christian faith (as you infer) is like claiming all Muslims are terrorists or members of ISIS. Both are so false on their face as to be laughable.
Little education on the KKK, I think they hate Catholics too. Last time I checked Catholics are Christians as well. Are the Catholics safe from the KKK argument? Maybe I'll convert.
"Yeah, but I PERSONALLY don't know any Christians like that, so therefore it's all a bunch of nuts that aren't 'Real Christians'."
This is the crux of the problem. If you ask individuals, they most likely will all say "Well, I don't care if gays get married". If that's the case, how do you explain why the supreme court had to rule on the issue? Because people have their head in the sand and can't see the truth due to wearing belief-tinted glasses.
"Yeah, but I PERSONALLY don't know any Christians like that, so therefore it's all a bunch of nuts that aren't 'Real Christians'."
This is the crux of the problem. If you ask individuals, they most likely will all say "Well, I don't care if gays get married". If that's the case, how do you explain why the supreme court had to rule on the issue? Because people have their head in the sand and can't see the truth due to wearing belief-tinted glasses.
As I said earlier, we will have to agree to disagree.
The KKK representing the Christian faith (as you infer) is like claiming all Muslims are terrorists or members of ISIS. Both are so false on their face as to be laughable.
Little education on the KKK, I think they hate Catholics too. Last time I checked Catholics are Christians as well. Are the Catholics safe from the KKK argument? Maybe I'll convert.
I didn't say the KKK represented Christians. I merely presented them as one instance where Christians were intolerant. One of many many many instances. One thing I've kind of glossed over is inter-denomination violence within the Christian faith. That's another good example of intolerance, thank you for mentioning it. Not even within the same religion can Christians live and let live.
As I said earlier, we will have to agree to disagree.
Reg, why is it so hard for you to just answer the question? Do you believe business owners should be allowed to discriminate against people, or not?
Our maybe you think discrimination based on sexuality is okay, but based on race is not? I'm bending over backwards here to give you the benefit of the doubt, because it sure sounds like you disagree with some pillars of the civil rights movement.
I didn't say the KKK represented Christians. I merely presented them as one instance where Christians were intolerant. One of many many many instances. One thing I've kind of glossed over is inter-denomination violence within the Christian faith. That's another good example of intolerance, thank you for mentioning it. Not even within the same religion can Christians live and let live.
Apparently all Hoosiers are intolerant as well. By your criteria, the Indiana Klan is an Indiana organization therefore we should vilify the entire state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Klan
Your statement with few alterations:
"I didn't say the KKK represented HoosiersChristians. I merely presented them as one instance where HoosiersChristianswere intolerant. One of many many many instances. Not even within the same statereligioncan HoosiersChristianslive and let live."
Claiming the KKK is representative of Christians is liking saying the KKK represents Hoosiers. I don't think that's any more true than claiming the KKK is a Christian organization.
On the Indiana topic, the pizza place refusing to serve homosexuals is a moron. I don't blame you (or any other Hoosiers I know), for that. I try to avoid using the actions of a few idiots to indict an entire state (or religion for that matter).
As I said earlier, we will have to agree to disagree.
Reg, why is it so hard for you to just answer the question? Do you believe business owners should be allowed to discriminate against people, or not?
Our maybe you think discrimination based on sexuality is okay, but based on race is not? I'm bending over backwards here to give you the benefit of the doubt, because it sure sounds like you disagree with some pillars of the civil rights movement.
There are lots of things I don't like about the Civil Rights movement. I bet it would be hard to find someone who liked every aspect of it, if they gave it any thought (raise your hand if you love Al Sharpton...). That said, I don't think discrimination on the basis of someone's race is right. Not sure why it matters in this context, but there it is.
As for gay marriage, etc. I have unformed views, by and large. I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it. I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them. It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with. Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships? Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*? I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all. There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.
Do I think very religious people should be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals? Again, unformed views on my part. I am pretty much a disinterested observer in all of this (being neither homosexual or subscribing to everything the Catholic Church says), and I have plenty of more pressing things to pay attention to. I do know that there is a significant minority of the US population that is deeply offended by all of this due to religious/cultural views. They will be politically galvanized by all of this and they do have at least some good points (e.g. freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc.). I think it would be foolish to discount their views out of hand and simply mock or ignore them.
As an aside, a lot of this is what I very much hate about Merkin politics these days. Everyone who expresses a view seems to have a strident one and it is "you are either for us or against us." Nobody wants to even listen to the other side, we all just seem to want to segregate ourselves by viewpoint so that we largely hear views we already agree with. Probably this is one of the reasons I become more and more disenchanted with this country's political process over time, although idiot Boy Scout me still considers it to be a duty of a citizen to cast a vote (even if I am retching while doing so).
As I said earlier, we will have to agree to disagree.
Reg, why is it so hard for you to just answer the question? Do you believe business owners should be allowed to discriminate against people, or not?
Our maybe you think discrimination based on sexuality is okay, but based on race is not? I'm bending over backwards here to give you the benefit of the doubt, because it sure sounds like you disagree with some pillars of the civil rights movement.
There are lots of things I don't like about the Civil Rights movement. I bet it would be hard to find someone who liked every aspect of it, if they gave it any thought (raise your hand if you love Al Sharpton...). That said, I don't think discrimination on the basis of someone's race is right. Not sure why it matters in this context, but there it is.
As for gay marriage, etc. I have unformed views, by and large. I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it. I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them. It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with. Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships? Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*? I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all. There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.
Do I think very religious people should be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals? Again, unformed views on my part. I am pretty much a disinterested observer in all of this (being neither homosexual or subscribing to everything the Catholic Church says), and I have plenty of more pressing things to pay attention to. I do know that there is a significant minority of the US population that is deeply offended by all of this due to religious/cultural views. They will be politically galvanized by all of this and they do have at least some good points (e.g. freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc.). I think it would be foolish to discount their views out of hand and simply mock or ignore them.
As an aside, a lot of this is what I very much hate about Merkin politics these days. Everyone who expresses a view seems to have a strident one and it is "you are either for us or against us." Nobody wants to even listen to the other side, we all just seem to want to segregate ourselves by viewpoint so that we largely hear views we already agree with. Probably this is one of the reasons I become more and more disenchanted with this country's political process over time, although idiot Boy Scout me still considers it to be a duty of a citizen to cast a vote (even if I am retching while doing so).
By your own admission, you don't have a formed view of anything being discussed. Maybe that's why nobody's listening to you.
As I said earlier, we will have to agree to disagree.
Reg, why is it so hard for you to just answer the question? Do you believe business owners should be allowed to discriminate against people, or not?
Our maybe you think discrimination based on sexuality is okay, but based on race is not? I'm bending over backwards here to give you the benefit of the doubt, because it sure sounds like you disagree with some pillars of the civil rights movement.
There are lots of things I don't like about the Civil Rights movement. I bet it would be hard to find someone who liked every aspect of it, if they gave it any thought (raise your hand if you love Al Sharpton...). That said, I don't think discrimination on the basis of someone's race is right. Not sure why it matters in this context, but there it is.
As for gay marriage, etc. I have unformed views, by and large. I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it. I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them. It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with. Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships? Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*? I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all. There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.
Do I think very religious people should be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals? Again, unformed views on my part. I am pretty much a disinterested observer in all of this (being neither homosexual or subscribing to everything the Catholic Church says), and I have plenty of more pressing things to pay attention to. I do know that there is a significant minority of the US population that is deeply offended by all of this due to religious/cultural views. They will be politically galvanized by all of this and they do have at least some good points (e.g. freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc.). I think it would be foolish to discount their views out of hand and simply mock or ignore them.
As an aside, a lot of this is what I very much hate about Merkin politics these days. Everyone who expresses a view seems to have a strident one and it is "you are either for us or against us." Nobody wants to even listen to the other side, we all just seem to want to segregate ourselves by viewpoint so that we largely hear views we already agree with. Probably this is one of the reasons I become more and more disenchanted with this country's political process over time, although idiot Boy Scout me still considers it to be a duty of a citizen to cast a vote (even if I am retching while doing so).
By your own admission, you don't have a formed view of anything being discussed. Maybe that's why nobody's listening to you.
Did it ever occur to you that I might be trying to form an opinion? If you aren't a raging egotist, a good way to do so is to listen to opposing views on the subject you are investigating.
As I said earlier, we will have to agree to disagree.
Reg, why is it so hard for you to just answer the question? Do you believe business owners should be allowed to discriminate against people, or not?
Our maybe you think discrimination based on sexuality is okay, but based on race is not? I'm bending over backwards here to give you the benefit of the doubt, because it sure sounds like you disagree with some pillars of the civil rights movement.
There are lots of things I don't like about the Civil Rights movement. I bet it would be hard to find someone who liked every aspect of it, if they gave it any thought (raise your hand if you love Al Sharpton...). That said, I don't think discrimination on the basis of someone's race is right. Not sure why it matters in this context, but there it is.
As for gay marriage, etc. I have unformed views, by and large. I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it. I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them. It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with. Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships? Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*? I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all. There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.
Do I think very religious people should be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals? Again, unformed views on my part. I am pretty much a disinterested observer in all of this (being neither homosexual or subscribing to everything the Catholic Church says), and I have plenty of more pressing things to pay attention to. I do know that there is a significant minority of the US population that is deeply offended by all of this due to religious/cultural views. They will be politically galvanized by all of this and they do have at least some good points (e.g. freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc.). I think it would be foolish to discount their views out of hand and simply mock or ignore them.
As an aside, a lot of this is what I very much hate about Merkin politics these days. Everyone who expresses a view seems to have a strident one and it is "you are either for us or against us." Nobody wants to even listen to the other side, we all just seem to want to segregate ourselves by viewpoint so that we largely hear views we already agree with. Probably this is one of the reasons I become more and more disenchanted with this country's political process over time, although idiot Boy Scout me still considers it to be a duty of a citizen to cast a vote (even if I am retching while doing so).
By your own admission, you don't have a formed view of anything being discussed. Maybe that's why nobody's listening to you.
Did it ever occur to you that I might be trying to form an opinion? If you aren't a raging egotist, a good way to do so is to listen to opposing views on the subject you are investigating.
So when will you start listening?
There is a difference. The KKK doesn't identify itself as a Hoosier organization, but they do identify as a Christian organization. Indiana being the birthplace of the KKK (actually just down the road from where I live is the home of the first Grand Dragon) is a sore point with a lot of people here. Thankfully, they have mostly left our state.
Comparing a pizza place to Christianity is a little absurd. Pizza parlors don't have any power to enforce their beliefs, but the right-wing Christians that have assumed public offices do. A perfect example of this is Mike Pence the Governor of Indiana. So in one way I do agree with you, Indiana is intolerant. Hoosiers elected a Christian Governor that enacted one of the more ridiculous laws in years. Pretty sure it wasn't the gays that voted for him though.
Christians are humans and get things wrong sometimes. So do atheists and muslims.
Christians are humans and get things wrong sometimes. So do atheists and muslims.
Ah, the hilarity. I can think of one very specific thing that Christians and Muslims get wrong that atheists do not, but it's one that leads to all kind of other mistakes.
Here's a hint: magic isn't real.
Did it ever occur to you that I might be trying to form an opinion? If you aren't a raging egotist, a good way to do so is to listen to opposing views on the subject you are investigating.
You can have beliefs without forcing them on others.
I think that in a hundred years, future children will be very confused about the status of American civil rights in the 1990s. "So, were they still killing each other for being different, or not?"
You can have beliefs without forcing them on others.
One of the great things about atheism is that it doesn't have any official mandate to evangelize. It doesn't ask that you believe in anything, or ask anyone else to believe in anything. Only that you stop believing in things that you already know aren't true.
I'm a grown up. Grown ups don't believe in magic, not really. They believe in wonder and beauty and a sense of reverence for the natural world, and they sometimes lie about believing in magic for the benefit of children, but they don't really believe in miracles or ghosts or invisible men who live in the sky. Except when their families or social support organization demands that they pretend to believe, then they usually fake it.
Bringing up Mike Pence would have been a rationale response as an example of Christians being intolerant. It's recent and he had widespread support among conservatives. I can see a rationale reason to criticize Christians for that. i don't have to agree or disagree on the topic to understand why it's relevant.
The KKK, on the other hand, has almost no members at this point and no support among main stream Christians. It's simply brought up for it's inflammatory appeal. KKK is bad therefore Christians are bad. No other real reason to use it as an example.
ISIS identifies as Muslim. Should I use it as an example of why the entire Muslim religion is bad? If I did so, I would be called intolerant.
This, and the kitchen sink of arguments you were throwing out against Christians is why I engaged you in this debate.
You are trying too hard to make the Christian religion scapegoats for all the ills of the world. Christians are humans and get things wrong sometimes. So do atheists and muslims.
You can have beliefs without forcing them on others.
One of the great things about atheism is that it doesn't have any official mandate to evangelize. It doesn't ask that you believe in anything, or ask anyone else to believe in anything. Only that you stop believing in things that you already know aren't true.
I'm a grown up. Grown ups don't believe in magic, not really. They believe in wonder and beauty and a sense of reverence for the natural world, and they sometimes lie about believing in magic for the benefit of children, but they don't really believe in miracles or ghosts or invisible men who live in the sky. Except when their families or social support organization demands that they pretend to believe, then they usually fake it.
Sol, WADR, do you realize how unnecessarily insulting this line of discussion is? I am glad your system of thought works for you. Perhaps you could acknowledge that others have different systems and it works for them.
Polls indicate that, among Christians, the disapproval rating of some groups as high as 75%. In contrast, Jewish approval is around 85% and non-affiliated approval is around 75%.
And yet you are evangelizing....Sometimes I chose to do things even if I don't have an ancient text giving me instructions. It's another perk of thinking for yourself.
Sol, WADR, do you realize how unnecessarily insulting this line of discussion is? I am glad your system of thought works for you. Perhaps you could acknowledge that others have different systems and it works for them.
His point, which you seemed to miss completely, is that we don't like having somebody else's belief system enforced on us. It's okay to believe whatever you want and I'm sure Sol would agree. But when your beliefs manifest themselves as laws that everybody must obey then there is a problem. Atheists don't do this, it is unique to Christians in this country.
Sol, WADR, do you realize how unnecessarily insulting this line of discussion is? I am glad your system of thought works for you. Perhaps you could acknowledge that others have different systems and it works for them.
His point, which you seemed to miss completely, is that we don't like having somebody else's belief system enforced on us. It's okay to believe whatever you want and I'm sure Sol would agree. But when your beliefs manifest themselves as laws that everybody must obey then there is a problem. Atheists don't do this, it is unique to Christians in this country.
Polls indicate that, among Christians, the disapproval rating of some groups as high as 75%. In contrast, Jewish approval is around 85% and non-affiliated approval is around 75%.
Well there you have it. The numbers don't lie.
Polls indicate that, among Christians, the disapproval rating of some groups as high as 75%. In contrast, Jewish approval is around 85% and non-affiliated approval is around 75%.
Well there you have it. The numbers don't lie.
The numbers can be cherry-picked in order to mislead, though. More American Christians support same-sex marriage than not: http://publicreligion.org/2015/04/attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage-by-religious-affiliation-and-denominational-family/#.VZGsDaY_Zt0
Polls indicate that, among Christians, the disapproval rating of some groups as high as 75%. In contrast, Jewish approval is around 85% and non-affiliated approval is around 75%.
Well there you have it. The numbers don't lie.
The numbers can be cherry-picked in order to mislead, though. More American Christians support same-sex marriage than not: http://publicreligion.org/2015/04/attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage-by-religious-affiliation-and-denominational-family/#.VZGsDaY_Zt0
That's because most people that are Christians are moderate Christians. I should point out that the intense your religious belief (i.e. how "evangelical" you are), the more your tolerance drops and drops and drops. So in this case, the numbers don't even mislead - they show that the more influence their religion has in their life, the less tolerant they are.
... This community used to be inclusive and a lot of fun. Not sure where all the maturity went... Regarding the Supreme Court decision, they've definitely overstepped their bounds here... homosexuality is still sin...
Polls indicate that, among Christians, the disapproval rating of some groups as high as 75%. In contrast, Jewish approval is around 85% and non-affiliated approval is around 75%.
Well there you have it. The numbers don't lie.
The numbers can be cherry-picked in order to mislead, though. More American Christians support same-sex marriage than not: http://publicreligion.org/2015/04/attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage-by-religious-affiliation-and-denominational-family/#.VZGsDaY_Zt0
That's because most people that are Christians are moderate Christians. I should point out that the intense your religious belief (i.e. how "evangelical" you are), the more your tolerance drops and drops and drops. So in this case, the numbers don't even mislead - they show that the more influence their religion has in their life, the less tolerant they are.
I don't accept the premise that the more evangelical you are the more religious you are. I think the vast majority would disagree with you as well - both religious and not.
Lots of hate in this thread for Christianity, which sadly seems to be the norm in Mustache Land. This community used to be inclusive and a lot of fun. Not sure where all the maturity went. But the mods allow it, so the hate must be ok. Regarding the Supreme Court decision, they've definitely overstepped their bounds here. They didn't define marriage, so they have no business trying to redefine it. 5 people making homosexual "marriage" legal in a country doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is still sin. If tomorrow they legalize theft, stealing would still be wrong. If next week they legalize killing your neighbor for not returning your shovel, murder would still be wrong. Sorry if you find the truth offensive, but it's still the truth.
Lots of hate in this thread for Christianity, which sadly seems to be the norm in Mustache Land. This community used to be inclusive and a lot of fun. Not sure where all the maturity went. But the mods allow it, so the hate must be ok. Regarding the Supreme Court decision, they've definitely overstepped their bounds here. They didn't define marriage, so they have no business trying to redefine it. 5 people making homosexual "marriage" legal in a country doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is still sin. If tomorrow they legalize theft, stealing would still be wrong. If next week they legalize killing your neighbor for not returning your shovel, murder would still be wrong. Sorry if you find the truth offensive, but it's still the truth.
You must be one of those moderate, highly tolerant Christians beltime was JUST talking about!
I work/socialize with several agnostics, muslims, a hindu and some Christians. None of us feel compelled to mock each others beliefs or try and convert the others. Maybe you could try that.
If you feel religion is magic, enjoy your extra hour or 2 a week. I'm good with that.
Lots of hate in this thread for Christianity, which sadly seems to be the norm in Mustache Land. This community used to be inclusive and a lot of fun.
Bringing up Mike Pence would have been a rationale response as an example of Christians being intolerant. It's recent and he had widespread support among conservatives. I can see a rationale reason to criticize Christians for that. i don't have to agree or disagree on the topic to understand why it's relevant.
The KKK, on the other hand, has almost no members at this point and no support among main stream Christians. It's simply brought up for it's inflammatory appeal. KKK is bad therefore Christians are bad. No other real reason to use it as an example.
ISIS identifies as Muslim. Should I use it as an example of why the entire Muslim religion is bad? If I did so, I would be called intolerant.
This, and the kitchen sink of arguments you were throwing out against Christians is why I engaged you in this debate.
You are trying too hard to make the Christian religion scapegoats for all the ills of the world. Christians are humans and get things wrong sometimes. So do atheists and muslims.
I brought up the KKK because everybody is familiar with it.
most Muslims (and people in general) condemn what ISIS is doing as barbaric. The same cannot be said for Christians in the United States when it comes to the unfair treatment of homosexuals.
Regarding the Supreme Court decision, they've definitely overstepped their bounds here. They didn't define marriage, so they have no business trying to redefine it.
I work/socialize with several agnostics, muslims, a hindu and some Christians. None of us feel compelled to mock each others beliefs or try and convert the others. Maybe you could try that.
If you feel religion is magic, enjoy your extra hour or 2 a week. I'm good with that.
Your workplace is actually a beautiful argument for atheism, because you each deny the existence of several gods in the room, and rightly so. I just deny one more than each of the rest of you. The agnostic is the only odd man out, since he apparently believes in everything.
And I'm not sure why you would accuse me of mocking for saying that magic isn't real, while we both use computers to communicate in near real time over vast distances. Science is amazing, simultaneously useful and exciting and transformative. What has magic done for you lately?
Children believe in magical all-seeing father figures with white beards who judge their actions and rewards good behavior. At some point they give up the magic reindeer and stockings full of presents, while still clinging to prayer and eternal life. I'm actually okay with that choice, but I admit that sometimes I let slip a little giggle at how silly it seems. We each get to choose what to believe, and I will continue to defend your choice and your right to preach it. That's what grown ups do.
You are comparing the atrocities that ISIS is committing to Christians campaigning against gay rights in the US?
ISIS is so barbaric they are even being condemned by Al-Qaeda. I think most homosexuals would rather forgo marriage than be murdered. What certain Christian factions are doing is wrong on gay rights, but those two aren't even in the same universe.
I gave you a perfectly reasonable position to complain about Christians and gay rights, yet you persist with the KKK line of reasoning.
I'm sorry you had such a bad time with Christians, but the comparisons to the KKK and ISIS seem over reaching and illogical to me.
Lots of hate in this thread for Christianity, which sadly seems to be the norm in Mustache Land. This community used to be inclusive and a lot of fun. Not sure where all the maturity went. But the mods allow it, so the hate must be ok. Regarding the Supreme Court decision, they've definitely overstepped their bounds here. They didn't define marriage, so they have no business trying to redefine it. 5 people making homosexual "marriage" legal in a country doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is still sin. If tomorrow they legalize theft, stealing would still be wrong. If next week they legalize killing your neighbor for not returning your shovel, murder would still be wrong. Sorry if you find the truth offensive, but it's still the truth.
Yes. Lots of hate/mocking for Christians.
Not as smart or witty as you all here(so I cannot engage in any sort of argument or defense of my faith because it is my faith) but for what it's worth - I'm 57 and been a Christian since I was 18. I believe in the Bible and it is truth to me. So homosexuality is a sin - like a lot of other sins. No better or no worse a sin. Just a sin. So to me - it's wrong -like other sins. Roll your eyes, mock me - do whatever. The Bible is my truth. I will continue to be as kind as I can to all and live a decent life and treat others as such - whether that person is gay,not gay whatever. The leadership of our country has changed the law and so it is. I know a lot of other people like me - living life - doing our best - but believe in the Bible. It is my plum line for living a life.
Oh well. Looking forward to retirement soon.
Yes. Lots of hate/mocking for Christians.
Not as smart or witty as you all here(so I cannot engage in any sort of argument or defense of my faith because it is my faith) but for what it's worth - I'm 57 and been a Christian since I was 18. I believe in the Bible and it is truth to me. So homosexuality is a sin - like a lot of other sins. No better or no worse a sin. Just a sin. So to me - it's wrong -like other sins. Roll your eyes, mock me - do whatever. The Bible is my truth. I will continue to be as kind as I can to all and live a decent life and treat others as such - whether that person is gay,not gay whatever. The leadership of our country has changed the law and so it is. I know a lot of other people like me - living life - doing our best - but believe in the Bible. It is my plum line for living a life.
Oh well. Looking forward to retirement soon.
What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.
- masturbating
- watching porn
- playing football
Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.
What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.
- masturbating
- watching porn
- playing football
Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.
Where are they banned? Or even mentioned? Neither of the first two is included in the list of definitions of the word "fornication" that I read.
Yeah everybody, this is the main thing I got from 4 pages of this thread.
With regard to respecting traditions, I love steak but I don't eat it in front the hindu. Something about respecting sacred cows. The comments about magic are kind of the same thing in my mind.
With regard to respecting traditions, I love steak but I don't eat it in front the hindu. Something about respecting sacred cows. The comments about magic are kind of the same thing in my mind.
The difference between actions and beliefs is an important one, and I've been trying to make the distinction clear here.
Your Hindu friend doesn't have to approve of eating cows, but he doesn't get to legally prohibit you from enjoying steak. You don't have to approve of gay marriage, but you can't legally prohibit other people from getting gay married. I don't have to believe in a Christian god, but I won't support any law that keeps anyone from worshipping (or not) as they see fit. One person's belief should not be another person's law.
The supreme court ruling doesn't force anyone to approve or sanction or condone gay marriage, privately. It prohibits anyone from forcing those private beliefs onto other people, in the spirit of the US civil rights movement protecting equality for all. If you value your right to worship freely and eat that steak, I think you kind of have to support the court's decision in this case.
Gay people are people, and they should probably have the same rights as other people. You are free to call them sinners as long as you don't infringe their rights.
With regard to respecting traditions, I love steak but I don't eat it in front the hindu. Something about respecting sacred cows. The comments about magic are kind of the same thing in my mind.
The difference between actions and beliefs is an important one, and I've been trying to make the distinction clear here.
Your Hindu friend doesn't have to approve of eating cows, but he doesn't get to legally prohibit you from enjoying steak. You don't have to approve of gay marriage, but you can't legally prohibit other people from getting gay married. I don't have to believe in a Christian god, but I won't support any law that keeps anyone from worshipping (or not) as they see fit. One person's belief should not be another person's law.
The supreme court ruling doesn't force anyone to approve or sanction or condone gay marriage, privately. It prohibits anyone from forcing those private beliefs onto other people, in the spirit of the US civil rights movement protecting equality for all. If you value your right to worship freely and eat that steak, I think you kind of have to support the court's decision in this case.
Gay people are people, and they should probably have the same rights as other people. You are free to call them sinners as long as you don't infringe their rights.
With regard to respecting traditions, I love steak but I don't eat it in front the hindu. Something about respecting sacred cows. The comments about magic are kind of the same thing in my mind.
The difference between actions and beliefs is an important one, and I've been trying to make the distinction clear here.
Your Hindu friend doesn't have to approve of eating cows, but he doesn't get to legally prohibit you from enjoying steak. You don't have to approve of gay marriage, but you can't legally prohibit other people from getting gay married. I don't have to believe in a Christian god, but I won't support any law that keeps anyone from worshipping (or not) as they see fit. One person's belief should not be another person's law.
The supreme court ruling doesn't force anyone to approve or sanction or condone gay marriage, privately. It prohibits anyone from forcing those private beliefs onto other people, in the spirit of the US civil rights movement protecting equality for all. If you value your right to worship freely and eat that steak, I think you kind of have to support the court's decision in this case.
Gay people are people, and they should probably have the same rights as other people. You are free to call them sinners as long as you don't infringe their rights.
Completely agree. Personal beliefs on gay marriage should be respected, but that's not a license to discriminate. I also don't feel the need to yell sinner at others for a behavior that doesn't impact me. Judge not. lest ye be judged.
I would make the exception that the clergy and churches should have the right to deny wedding ceremonies to anyone they so choose. If same sex couples want to form the church of same sex, they are free to deny hetero couples the right to marry in their church.
County clerks and justice of the peace, obey the law. State sponsored marriage is not a religious issue. Religious marriage is another matter.
With regard to respecting traditions, I love steak but I don't eat it in front the hindu. Something about respecting sacred cows. The comments about magic are kind of the same thing in my mind.
The difference between actions and beliefs is an important one, and I've been trying to make the distinction clear here.
Your Hindu friend doesn't have to approve of eating cows, but he doesn't get to legally prohibit you from enjoying steak. You don't have to approve of gay marriage, but you can't legally prohibit other people from getting gay married. I don't have to believe in a Christian god, but I won't support any law that keeps anyone from worshipping (or not) as they see fit. One person's belief should not be another person's law.
The supreme court ruling doesn't force anyone to approve or sanction or condone gay marriage, privately. It prohibits anyone from forcing those private beliefs onto other people, in the spirit of the US civil rights movement protecting equality for all. If you value your right to worship freely and eat that steak, I think you kind of have to support the court's decision in this case.
Gay people are people, and they should probably have the same rights as other people. You are free to call them sinners as long as you don't infringe their rights.
Completely agree. Personal beliefs on gay marriage should be respected, but that's not a license to discriminate. I also don't feel the need to yell sinner at others (or mock them) for a behavior that doesn't impact me. Judge not. lest ye be judged.
I would make the exception that the clergy and churches should have the right to deny wedding ceremonies to anyone they so choose. If same sex couples want to form the church of same sex, they are free to deny hetero couples the right to marry in their church.
County clerks and justice of the peace, obey the law. State sponsored marriage is not a religious issue. Religious marriage is another matter.
Regarding the Supreme Court decision, they've definitely overstepped their bounds here. They didn't define marriage, so they have no business trying to redefine it.
But the U.S. government DID create a definition for marriage for use in tax laws, visitation rights, adoption laws, etc. The supreme court has simply decided that the definition they created must include homosexuals due to the 14th amendment. Not sure what you mean here.
Completely agree. Personal beliefs on gay marriage should be respected, but that's not a license to discriminate. I also don't feel the need to yell sinner at others (or mock them) for a behavior that doesn't impact me. Judge not. lest ye be judged.
I would make the exception that the clergy and churches should have the right to deny wedding ceremonies to anyone they so choose. If same sex couples want to form the church of same sex, they are free to deny hetero couples the right to marry in their church.
County clerks and justice of the peace, obey the law. State sponsored marriage is not a religious issue. Religious marriage is another matter.
I completely agree with you. :-O :-) In fact, clergy and other churches already refuse to marry couples already, in large numbers. For example, if you are Catholic and want to marry a Jewish person, good luck with that!
Exactly. And of course, clergy has always been able to refuse to marry people whose beliefs or practices they don't agree with.
ATTN MODS: One vote for locking this thread. No longer on topic and getting snippy.
ATTN MODS: One vote for locking this thread. No longer on topic and getting snippy.
ATTN MODS: One vote for locking this thread. No longer on topic and getting snippy.
I'll give you snippy, but I think we're still on topic.
ATTN MODS: One vote for locking this thread. No longer on topic and getting snippy.
I agree with Sol (and that rarely happens on social discussions, lol). And I am religious, just not Christian.ATTN MODS: One vote for locking this thread. No longer on topic and getting snippy.
I'll give you snippy, but I think we're still on topic. We're talking about the Supreme Court's ruling on same sex marriage, and how it fits into the other religious and social freedoms we enjoy, how those freedoms have grown over time, and how they might be threatened in the future by the very exercise they are designed to protect.
I think religious bigotry is the single biggest threat to religious freedom in the US. Funny how that works, isn't it? It's most commonly conservative religious folks who argue in favor restricting the rights of others, and who have organized against the American expansion of civil rights over the decades. Those of us without any religion to exercise are no less obligated to defend their right to preach discrimination than we are to defend their other rights. All we ask in return is that we be allowed to point out the hypocrisy once in a while as a gentle reminder that other people's freedoms are protected just like yours are.
I have to say that I have enjoyed lurking and reading this thread. If you take note my location, you can just imagine the type of arguments I've heard this past week. This really has been quite a civil discussion. A few flareups are to be expected when discussing politics and religion. I knew I could come to a forum that handles the taboo topic of money so well for some intellectual stimulation on these other topics. Thanks to both sides.
ATTN MODS: One vote for locking this thread. No longer on topic and getting snippy.
Disagree - I'm surprise (and impressed) how civil and on-topic things have stayed.
This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.--Jesus in John 15:12
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.--Jesus in John 13:34
For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another.--1 John 3:11
And this is his command:...to love one another as he commanded us.--1 John 3:23
And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another.--2 John 1:5
^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.
But I will note some statistics that should be concerning to the religious folks. Namely that people who have no religious affiliation (the 'nones') are seriously on the rise in the US:
it is my strong suspicion that the defection from mainline Christianity to Nones strongly parallels the increase in tolerance for things like gay marriage, and a more progressive world view in general.
Judaism is already most of the way down this road. Most of the Jews I know are atheists, despite active involvement with their temples and traditions. They see it as a cultural identity and a celebration of their past, but they're not seriously preparing for the arrival of the son of god to walk among men. They recognize that their creation stories are myths, just like the Greek and Roman myths, the Egyptian myths, the Native American myths, and the Christian myths. Beautiful stories worth teaching and remembering, but not literally true.
^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.
^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.
Well sure, you and I can believe that, but if part of their religion is to convert others, you can see why it would be concerning for them (and thus concerning for us that it's concerning for them, as they dig in and fight and up the stakes).
^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.
Well sure, you and I can believe that, but if part of their religion is to convert others, you can see why it would be concerning for them (and thus concerning for us that it's concerning for them, as they dig in and fight and up the stakes).
Of course. I get that part of many Christian faiths is the obligation to prosletyze. Which I find absolutely maddening, for a number of reasons, but I get why they are told to do it -- both the stated and the instated reasons. I was commenting on the irritating hypocrisy of those who try to force their faith on others, but then cry foul when they think that a constitutional ruling by the courts is tantamount to someone else forcing them to do something they don't want to do.
Judaism is already most of the way down this road. Most of the Jews I know are atheists, despite active involvement with their temples and traditions. They see it as a cultural identity and a celebration of their past, but they're not seriously preparing for the arrival of the son of god to walk among men. They recognize that their creation stories are historical embellishments that became myths, just like the Greek and Roman myths, the Egyptian myths, the Native American myths, and the Christian myths. Beautiful stories worth teaching and remembering, but not literally true.
^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.
Well sure, you and I can believe that, but if part of their religion is to convert others, you can see why it would be concerning for them (and thus concerning for us that it's concerning for them, as they dig in and fight and up the stakes).
Of course. I get that part of many Christian faiths is the obligation to prosletyze. Which I find absolutely maddening, for a number of reasons, but I get why they are told to do it -- both the stated and the instated reasons. I was commenting on the irritating hypocrisy of those who try to force their faith on others, but then cry foul when they think that a constitutional ruling by the courts is tantamount to someone else forcing them to do something they don't want to do.
^^^ Although I don't know why it would be concerning for them, since it's none of their business who believes what.
Well sure, you and I can believe that, but if part of their religion is to convert others, you can see why it would be concerning for them (and thus concerning for us that it's concerning for them, as they dig in and fight and up the stakes).
Of course. I get that part of many Christian faiths is the obligation to prosletyze. Which I find absolutely maddening, for a number of reasons, but I get why they are told to do it -- both the stated and the instated reasons. I was commenting on the irritating hypocrisy of those who try to force their faith on others, but then cry foul when they think that a constitutional ruling by the courts is tantamount to someone else forcing them to do something they don't want to do.
There's a strong Christian tradition of reveling in "persecution"--whether real or imagined. It's commonly taught that anything that goes wrong in the world is Satan's doing, and that anything going wrong in their own lives is Satan's doing because God is allowing them to be tested. So many Christians see some policy decision that doesn't impact their lives but take it as though Satan is deliberately doing it, and "winning" the battle.
"Being persecuted" is a strong social tool to rally people in a group around a common enemy--sort of a negative integration tactic. It builds group cohesion, solidifies individual identification with the movement, and moves people more into an emotional reaction paradigm instead of a thinking and rational paradigm.
Many Christians see anything they don't like and call it persecution. Someone saying "Happy Hollidays" is fighting the "War on Christmas(TM)" and that's a form of persecution. Policies that don't allow schools to force group prayer is another form of "persecution". It's really common. The shifts in religious belief in the country is definitely enough to get the battle flags flying.
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf2dg05Eqj1qzwaddo1_500.png)
Actually, the curriculum in Ontario has been updated this year to explain gay sex in classes . . . soo . . . mebbe your chart is incorrect.
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf2dg05Eqj1qzwaddo1_500.png)
Actually, the curriculum in Ontario has been updated this year to explain gay sex in classes . . . soo . . . mebbe your chart is incorrect.
I know you're mostly kidding, but just as a reminder for the lurkers, there's nothing gay people do that straights don't also do--it's not like we have secret different genitalia. Straights have vastly more anal sex, on a numbers basis and probably even proportionally, than gay men do, and there's certainly plenty of oral all around.
It's vital to be honest in sex-ed classes about the real things people do (not just "vaginal intercourse exists, don't do it or you're a bad person," which has been proven very thoroughly to increase teen pregnancies and STIs). By acknowledging other acts, we help kids learn to use protection and safer sex, and to choose lower-risk activities. If teens are going to be having sex anyway--and they are--I'm glad to live in a province that makes sure they know handjobs (and masturbation, for that matter!) exist and are low-risk.
As for gay marriage, etc. I have unformed views, by and large. I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it. I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them. It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with. Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships? Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*? I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all. There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.
Exactly. And of course, clergy has always been able to refuse to marry people whose beliefs or practices they don't agree with.
I know this is serious, but the bolded made me laugh.(http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf2dg05Eqj1qzwaddo1_500.png)
Actually, the curriculum in Ontario has been updated this year to explain gay sex in classes . . . soo . . . mebbe your chart is incorrect.
I know you're mostly kidding, but just as a reminder for the lurkers, there's nothing gay people do that straights don't also do--it's not like we have secret different genitalia. Straights have vastly more anal sex, on a numbers basis and probably even proportionally, than gay men do, and there's certainly plenty of oral all around.
It's vital to be honest in sex-ed classes about the real things people do (not just "vaginal intercourse exists, don't do it or you're a bad person," which has been proven very thoroughly to increase teen pregnancies and STIs). By acknowledging other acts, we help kids learn to use protection and safer sex, and to choose lower-risk activities. If teens are going to be having sex anyway--and they are--I'm glad to live in a province that makes sure they know handjobs (and masturbation, for that matter!) exist and are low-risk.
Exactly. And of course, clergy has always been able to refuse to marry people whose beliefs or practices they don't agree with.
The more interesting question, to me, is how the "religious freedom" argument only gets extended to refusal to marry people (which, yes: who wants that energy in their wedding?) and people rarely talk about the other side of it, which is that lots of churches, temples, mosques, etc, have been willing and happy to marry same-sex people for decades while being refused by the state. What about their religious freedoms, if we're going to endlessly debate the right to refuse? There are pastors and so on in Alabama and Mississippi who, if their governors can make it happen, will not be able to marry their parishioners because of state action. Somehow the people who claim to be centrally concerned with religious freedom don't seem to mind that.
As for gay marriage, etc. I have unformed views, by and large. I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it. I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them. It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with. Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships? Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*? I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all. There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.
On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.
In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.
So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.
As for gay marriage, etc. I have unformed views, by and large. I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it. I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them. It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with. Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships? Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*? I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all. There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.
On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.
In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.
So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.
I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged. That said, I suspect you have extremely cherry-picked statistics on homosexual couples, especially when it comes to raising children. The reluctance of adoption agencies, etc. to place children with such families means that only the squeakiest clean, most stable and well-off ones get kids to raise that did not come from a prior heterosexual relationship or artificial insemination. Hard to believe that would not yield different outcomes from he general population, ceteris paribus.
I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged.
As for gay marriage, etc. I have unformed views, by and large. I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it. I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them. It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with. Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships? Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*? I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all. There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.
On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.
In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.
So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.
I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged. That said, I suspect you have extremely cherry-picked statistics on homosexual couples, especially when it comes to raising children. The reluctance of adoption agencies, etc. to place children with such families means that only the squeakiest clean, most stable and well-off ones get kids to raise that did not come from a prior heterosexual relationship or artificial insemination. Hard to believe that would not yield different outcomes from he general population, ceteris paribus.
The more interesting question, to me, is how the "religious freedom" argument only gets extended to refusal to marry people (which, yes: who wants that energy in their wedding?) and people rarely talk about the other side of it, which is that lots of churches, temples, mosques, etc, have been willing and happy to marry same-sex people for decades while being refused by the state. ...
Regarding the Supreme Court decision, they've definitely overstepped their bounds here. They didn't define marriage, so they have no business trying to redefine it.
But the U.S. government DID create a definition for marriage for use in tax laws, visitation rights, adoption laws, etc. The supreme court has simply decided that the definition they created must include homosexuals due to the 14th amendment. Not sure what you mean here.
religious belief shouldn't be protected from criticism, as long as that criticism doesn't become an ad hominem attack on the person professing that belief. You should be able to provide rational, logical arguments for why you believe homosexual relationships shouldn't be given the same treatment under the government's law
As for gay marriage, etc. I have unformed views, by and large. I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it. I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them. It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with. Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships? Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*? I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all. There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.
On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.
In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.
So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.
I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged. That said, I suspect you have extremely cherry-picked statistics on homosexual couples, especially when it comes to raising children. The reluctance of adoption agencies, etc. to place children with such families means that only the squeakiest clean, most stable and well-off ones get kids to raise that did not come from a prior heterosexual relationship or artificial insemination. Hard to believe that would not yield different outcomes from he general population, ceteris paribus.
I don't understand why you consider MLKnits' remarks mockery just because they don't support what you believe. He did not cite sources, true, but there are studies on a number of the things he says.. Re raising children, here is an article that rovides abstracts and links to scholarly articles to some of the studies done.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup
As for gay marriage, etc. I have unformed views, by and large. I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it. I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them. It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with. Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships? Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*? I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all. There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.
On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.
In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.
So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.
I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged. That said, I suspect you have extremely cherry-picked statistics on homosexual couples, especially when it comes to raising children. The reluctance of adoption agencies, etc. to place children with such families means that only the squeakiest clean, most stable and well-off ones get kids to raise that did not come from a prior heterosexual relationship or artificial insemination. Hard to believe that would not yield different outcomes from he general population, ceteris paribus.
I don't understand why you consider MLKnits' remarks mockery just because they don't support what you believe. He did not cite sources, true, but there are studies on a number of the things he says.. Re raising children, here is an article that rovides abstracts and links to scholarly articles to some of the studies done.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup
Ah, cited sources. Thanks. Much better than bald statements with no backing, one way or the other.
As for the rest, even the most bigoted atheists seem to express frustration that they cannot "reason" with religious people. Congratulations, you have it! Religious people have decided for reasons of their own that they believe in the tenets of their faith. Believe, not reason to that position (apologetics and theological arguments aside). Yes, you will not be able to use argument to persuade them to drop their faith. So give it up. Learn to live and let live. You are wasting your time.
I love all the posters beating on me for "not listening" or trumpeting the superiority of my religion. I have done no such things. The problem is that there is such dogmatic groupthink here that anyone that does not 99.9% agree with the most outspoken posters is evil/not listening/irrational/whatever. For all the alleged tolerance you folks profess, it sure does not extend to anyone who disagrees with you.
Well, I leave you to enjoy the groupthink and high-fiving. enjoy.
Actually many children on homosexual couples in these studies included not only adopted but also the biological child of one partner. Why would those children be any different than the overall population? And no, he is not cherry picking. That data is common knowledge in the psych field. Either there is no difference or the homosexual partners do better. I'm straight, I have a daughter, that is not an attack on me. It means I should look at what homosexuals are doing right, that is all. Why would a moderator do anything here? That he did not cite an article when there are so many to be considered common knowledge, seriously?As for gay marriage, etc. I have unformed views, by and large. I think it is different from race in some important ways, but I haven't decided by how much or whether the differences matter when you get down to the bottom of it. I also understand that there are people who don't see a difference and that is up to them. It appears to me that gay relationships are fundamentally different from the long term heterosexual marriages I am familiar with. Is that because the option of marriage was never on the table as an option and it changed the structure of many of those relationships? Or is it because homosexual relationships are just *different*? I guess we will all get to find out now that the option is open to all. There is a lot of "I don't know" here and it is genuine on my part.
On a statistical level, they are different from heterosexual relationships. They have a more balanced division of housework and childcare than heterosexual relationships do, for instance. Also, the overall outcomes for children raised in them are better, though, to be fair, same-sex couples are vastly less likely to have "oops!" babies they aren't prepared for/can't afford.
In addition, many of the assumptions that are often brought to the table in heterosexual relationships, like who's expected to nurture and who's expected to provide, don't exist in same-sex relationships: we have to decide that based on our actual skills and desires, not what's between our legs.
So yes, there are differences. Personally, I think they're great ones, and I'm hopeful that seeing the range of relationship options that truly exist will be beneficial for those who might otherwise assume "man works, woman cleans" is their only choice.
I am pretty much done with this thread since it is clear that moderation swings a particular way and open mocking of other people's beliefs is tolerated and encouraged. That said, I suspect you have extremely cherry-picked statistics on homosexual couples, especially when it comes to raising children. The reluctance of adoption agencies, etc. to place children with such families means that only the squeakiest clean, most stable and well-off ones get kids to raise that did not come from a prior heterosexual relationship or artificial insemination. Hard to believe that would not yield different outcomes from he general population, ceteris paribus.
In reg's defense, there has been kind of a lot of high fiving in this thread.
I was hoping that he or others of faith might contribute more, for example by providing their thoughts on why it is okay to have laws that discriminate against people for being different, or extolling the virtues of adhering to a belief system several millennia old. Our how they reconcile their apparent distaste for social progress with their presumed embrace of technological progress. These open questions are an opportunity for two way communication, if anyone wants to chip in. I'm trying to invite dissenting views, not shout them down.
IPDaily has written a bunch on these topics, and I thought his insights were interesting even when I disagreed with his positions.
Much of this thread frames the discussion as people of faith are holding back social progress, and your post is an exemplar of that framing.
religious belief shouldn't be protected from criticism, as long as that criticism doesn't become an ad hominem attack on the person professing that belief. You should be able to provide rational, logical arguments for why you believe homosexual relationships shouldn't be given the same treatment under the government's law
Those are the kinds of arguments I've been seeking here. If you believe gay people should have fewer rights than straight people, please explain why. I'm genuinely interested in hearing the rationalizations for such beliefs.
Sometimes Christians overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage: see Unitarian Universalists at 94%!
Unitarian Universalists are agnostic, theist, atheist and everything in between.
Much of this thread frames the discussion as people of faith are holding back social progress, and your post is an exemplar of that framing.
I didn't mean to assert that a majority of religious people oppose social progress, but I stand by my (precise) assertion that most opposition has been organized by religious groups. Do you know of ANY groups who oppose gay marriage for reasons other than their religion?
There are county clerks in multiple states refusing to issue marriage licensed today to same sex couples because of their faith. To my eyes, this is akin to the aforementioned Hindu refusing to slaughter a cow; why did you become a butcher?
If your religion prevents you from doing a job, don't do that job. It's not discrimination when you are the one refusing to do what your employer has hired you to do. It IS discrimination when you force your religious beliefs onto people who don't share them by violating their legally protected rights.
We're not talking about religious marriage, we're talking about filing legal paperwork with the county. Priests and Shamans have always been able to refuse to marry anyone. But a civil servant is not allowed to deny your driver's license or voter registration or marriage application because of their religious beliefs, any more than they are allowed to grant polygamous marriages if they are Mormon. The law doesn't allow it. Their job is to uphold the law.
I happily accept your criticism about framing the discussion in terms of how religion tramples rights, instead of the good things religions have done, because this is a thread about trampled rights.
I want to call out Sol for being inclusive here. Not many would include Shamans when talking about religious. Often those in non-Abrahamic religions sit on the side line with the non-religious arguing with the Abrahamic religions and the no one seems to consider that we are not agreeing with the Abrahamic religions. So my hat off to Sol for his inclusion of religions that don't worship the God of Abraham.Much of this thread frames the discussion as people of faith are holding back social progress, and your post is an exemplar of that framing.
I didn't mean to assert that a majority of religious people oppose social progress, but I stand by my (precise) assertion that most opposition has been organized by religious groups. Do you know of ANY groups who oppose gay marriage for reasons other than their religion?
There are county clerks in multiple states refusing to issue marriage licensed today to same sex couples because of their faith. To my eyes, this is akin to the aforementioned Hindu refusing to slaughter a cow; why did you become a butcher?
If your religion prevents you from doing a job, don't do that job. It's not discrimination when you are the one refusing to do what your employer has hired you to do. It IS discrimination when you force your religious beliefs onto people who don't share them by violating their legally protected rights.
We're not talking about religious marriage, we're talking about filing legal paperwork with the county. Priests and Shamans have always been able to refuse to marry anyone. But a civil servant is not allowed to deny your driver's license or voter registration or marriage application because of their religious beliefs, any more than they are allowed to grant polygamous marriages if they are Mormon. The law doesn't allow it. Their job is to uphold the law.
I happily accept your criticism about framing the discussion in terms of how religion tramples rights, instead of the good things religions have done, because this is a thread about trampled rights.
you don't help your argument by saying that religious people trample rights when more religious support the right under discussion than don't.
I have to agree here. I have found atheists who often think I'm nuts, but the general consensus seems to be, I don't care as long as you don't expect me to worship along with you. Maybe those who are feeling attacked here, should figure out what the group you are identifying with has done to get this reaction and then decide if you should belong to it or not.you don't help your argument by saying that religious people trample rights when more religious support the right under discussion than don't.
I think this is probably just a matter of fighting your battles where you find them.
If you want to fight for equality, and the only people opposing equality are doing so for religious reasons, then it seems natural to attack the religious basis of the opposition as the unifying thread.
I would like nothing more than for the faith-based community to do a better job policing their own members when they promote intolerance and hate. I would even stand at their side to help out. It's not the belief in the supernatural that bothers me, I actually support everyone's right to find their own belief system, it's just the active discrimination against people who don't share your beliefs that gets me riled up.
So for anyone else our there who is feeling maligned, fret not. Atheists do not care what creation story or ancient book you believe in. We only care that you allow everyone else to also choose their beliefs, free of discrimination or bias or oppressive laws. We tend to think we've found the truth, and that the truth will eventually win out all by itself, so we're not threatened by your faith or trying to limit your freedoms. We're trying to protect your freedoms, including your right to worship, just like we're trying to protect our own and everyone else's.
Sometimes Christians overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage: see Unitarian Universalists at 94%!
I don't think Unitarian Universalist is a Christian denomination. There's no discussion of Christ at all in their belief statements. And even a belief in God is not necessarily required.
http://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe
http://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/sacred-textsQuoteUnitarian Universalists are agnostic, theist, atheist and everything in between.
They are kind of a non-religious religion. Perhaps that's why they are so overwhelmingly in support of same-sex marriage.
you don't help your argument by saying that religious people trample rights when more religious support the right under discussion than don't.
I think this is probably just a matter of fighting your battles where you find them.
If you want to fight for equality, and the only people opposing equality are doing so for religious reasons, then it seems natural to attack the religious basis of the opposition as the unifying thread.
We tend to think we've found the truth, and that the truth will eventually win out all by itself, so we're not threatened by your faith or trying to limit your freedoms. We're trying to protect your freedoms, including your right to worship, just like we're trying to protect our own and everyone else's.
There are state sponsored reductions of rights - including same sex marriage - in many countries with no religious basis (China, Russia).
There are places in my country which are considered sacred by local Maori and where the behaviour of visitors is restricted in ways that it is not restricted in other places. I support the practice while not sharing the belief.
First off, I am a Christian and I find it very interesting reading through this thread. It does seem that religion is getting attacked quit a bit in this discussion but that could just be me reading into things. With all that has happened in the last week I have been pretty silent and just observing the two sides basically attack each other non stop. Also, I'm not just talking about this thread but everything that I am seeing over Facebook and social media. So this is what I am seeing from both sides so far...Uh, I went to Catholic school and they educated me a bit better than that. You do realize that the USA is NOT a Christian country and we don't have "Christian values". The US was modeled after Ancient Greece. And when you try to restrict people from basic rights they really don't find that ok. It is not about your beliefs, it is about you forcing them on others that people are hating.
Christians:
OMG! The Supreme Court passed marriage equality! How can they redefine marriage like that!
Growing up in the Church it seems like the majority of Christians believe that the U.S. was brought up on purely christian values and they want it to stay that way. I have noticed that the majority of Christians I see freaking out are really worried about society in general and how our societies views are changing. The reasoning for these people on being against marriage equality is extremely simple, it's a sin according to the Bible and they don't want to see society moving to sinful ways. So now let me get to what I am seeing on the other side.
Marriage Equality:
Everyone has the right to love and to join into marriage! Yay marriage equality! Christians are horrible people because they discriminate against gays!
I have literally seen a ton of Pro Equality FB friends attacking Christian FB friends for there beliefs. I find it kinda ironic because the Pro Equality group is demeaning towards the Christian group for their beliefs. But this totally goes the other way too. It's like a full on Hate/Hate battle.
So from my point of view the reason it is so hard for both sides to comprehend each other is due to the fact that the correct answer on each side is just so simple... You have one side rooting for equality and the other side rooting for their beliefs.
All of this is just what I have observed. I try to keep an open mind in order to understand both sides usually in whatever I am looking into. Now for what I think...
My thoughts:
I do not support of same sex marriage because I believe it is a sin. That being said, I don't want to rant and rave about how stupid this decision is because what good does that do. It doesn't help me show the love of Christ to anyone and honestly I can't control what the Supreme Court decided. The only thing I control is how I treat others and hopefully I treat them as Christ would have treated them, with love and respect. As Christians, we have a lot to think about and ponder and we must continue to focus on our relationship with Christ because that's the relationship we have the most control over. We also must remember that sin is sin, being homosexual isn't any worse than the other sexual sins like adultery, sex outside of marriage, and divorce. Seriously, Christians have the same divorce rate as the rest of society so we have plenty to work on ourselves. My wife posted this scripture after the ruling came out and I think it sums things up nicely.
Matthew 7:5
Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.
Sorry for grammar/spelling mistakes. Was in a rush to finish the post....
There are places in my country which are considered sacred by local Maori and where the behaviour of visitors is restricted in ways that it is not restricted in other places. I support the practice while not sharing the belief.
Your voluntary compliance with someone else's belief is not the same as legally mandated compliance for everyone. Would you support a law restricting all access to Tongariro National park?
What if one tribe thinks a site is sacred and their neighbor tribe thinks it's good hunting grounds? Do you forbid a tribe access to their usual and accustomed hunting grounds on the basis of some other groups beliefs?
It's much harder to enforce equality for everyone by placing restrictions on everyone than it is by granting freedoms to everyone. You respect your sacred land and I'll respect mine.
There are state sponsored reductions of rights - including same sex marriage - in many countries with no religious basis (China, Russia).
Oooh, now there's an interesting tidbit. Why do they do that?
Five minutes of internet research suggests that Russian opposition to homosexuality is primarily driven by the orthodox church, but supplemented with cold war era attitudes about the corrosive influence of western culture.
In China, by contrast, the opposition is apparently due to western influence. Ancient China openly tolerated homosexuality (and polygamy), but they eventually imported western social mores and have just held onto them longer than the west has.
So in both cases, I think religion is still at least partially on the hook as the primary cause. So much for that "no religious basis" claim.
I'm not sure you're helping, beltim. You're reinforcing my suspicions that organized religion has been the primary obstacle to social progress, certainly in America but maybe everywhere else, too.
First off, I am a Christian and I find it very interesting reading through this thread. It does seem that religion is getting attacked quit a bit in this discussion but that could just be me reading into things. With all that has happened in the last week I have been pretty silent and just observing the two sides basically attack each other non stop. Also, I'm not just talking about this thread but everything that I am seeing over Facebook and social media. So this is what I am seeing from both sides so far...Uh, I went to Catholic school and they educated me a bit better than that. You do realize that the USA is NOT a Christian country and we don't have "Christian values". The US was modeled after Ancient Greece. And when you try to restrict people from basic rights they really don't find that ok. It is not about your beliefs, it is about you forcing them on others that people are hating.
Christians:
OMG! The Supreme Court passed marriage equality! How can they redefine marriage like that!
Growing up in the Church it seems like the majority of Christians believe that the U.S. was brought up on purely christian values and they want it to stay that way. I have noticed that the majority of Christians I see freaking out are really worried about society in general and how our societies views are changing. The reasoning for these people on being against marriage equality is extremely simple, it's a sin according to the Bible and they don't want to see society moving to sinful ways. So now let me get to what I am seeing on the other side.
Marriage Equality:
Everyone has the right to love and to join into marriage! Yay marriage equality! Christians are horrible people because they discriminate against gays!
I have literally seen a ton of Pro Equality FB friends attacking Christian FB friends for there beliefs. I find it kinda ironic because the Pro Equality group is demeaning towards the Christian group for their beliefs. But this totally goes the other way too. It's like a full on Hate/Hate battle.
So from my point of view the reason it is so hard for both sides to comprehend each other is due to the fact that the correct answer on each side is just so simple... You have one side rooting for equality and the other side rooting for their beliefs.
All of this is just what I have observed. I try to keep an open mind in order to understand both sides usually in whatever I am looking into. Now for what I think...
My thoughts:
I do not support of same sex marriage because I believe it is a sin. That being said, I don't want to rant and rave about how stupid this decision is because what good does that do. It doesn't help me show the love of Christ to anyone and honestly I can't control what the Supreme Court decided. The only thing I control is how I treat others and hopefully I treat them as Christ would have treated them, with love and respect. As Christians, we have a lot to think about and ponder and we must continue to focus on our relationship with Christ because that's the relationship we have the most control over. We also must remember that sin is sin, being homosexual isn't any worse than the other sexual sins like adultery, sex outside of marriage, and divorce. Seriously, Christians have the same divorce rate as the rest of society so we have plenty to work on ourselves. My wife posted this scripture after the ruling came out and I think it sums things up nicely.
Matthew 7:5
Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.
Sorry for grammar/spelling mistakes. Was in a rush to finish the post....
It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole. Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it. My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error.
That amused me, especially the line on the bottom. :)It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole. Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it. My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error.
This fits into a lot of the things you hear Christians saying on the news: The evidence doesn't align with my world view and is therefor irrelevant. Maybe Sol's wrong - but I guess we'll never know since it's apparently not worthy of research or debate. That doesn't mean it's a "rabbit hole" however.
There are a couple things I think we can agree on here: 1) Gays had a hard time achieving equality and 2) This was do in large part to religious parties standing in the way. You say that most Christians supported same sex marriage. If we were to assume that is true, how do you explain why it was the elected representatives, who mostly self define as Christian, that were the spearhead preventing gay rights?
Here is a relavent image I found today. Too large to embed, please enjoy!
http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/05/1-onCEha4zx1dnu0crkEahcg.png
I provided evidence that apparently doesn't agree with your worldview. I think sol has clarified that he never intended to say that most Christians oppose same sex marriage - so I got my point across with him.It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole. Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it. My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error.
This fits into a lot of the things you hear Christians saying on the news: The evidence doesn't align with my world view and is therefor irrelevant.
Maybe Sol's wrong - but I guess we'll never know since it's apparently not worthy of research or debate. That doesn't mean it's a "rabbit hole" however.
There are a couple things I think we can agree on here: 1) Gays had a hard time achieving equality and 2) This was do in large part to religious parties standing in the way. You say that most Christians supported same sex marriage. If we were to assume that is true, how do you explain why it was the elected representatives, who mostly self define as Christian, that were the spearhead preventing gay rights?
I provided evidence that apparently doesn't agree with your worldview. I think sol has clarified that he never intended to say that most Christians oppose same sex marriage - so I got my point across with him.It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole. Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it. My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error.
This fits into a lot of the things you hear Christians saying on the news: The evidence doesn't align with my world view and is therefor irrelevant.
QuoteMaybe Sol's wrong - but I guess we'll never know since it's apparently not worthy of research or debate. That doesn't mean it's a "rabbit hole" however.
Swing and a miss! I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said it got us down a rabbit hole, i.e. away from my original point, that you cherry picked data when surveys in fact show most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage.
QuoteThere are a couple things I think we can agree on here: 1) Gays had a hard time achieving equality and 2) This was do in large part to religious parties standing in the way. You say that most Christians supported same sex marriage. If we were to assume that is true, how do you explain why it was the elected representatives, who mostly self define as Christian, that were the spearhead preventing gay rights?
We don't have to assume - I have now twice provided evidence. And the explanation for why some Christians spearheaded preventing gay rights is easy - they're in the minority. No one said ALL Christians supported same sex marriage.
I provided evidence that apparently doesn't agree with your worldview. I think sol has clarified that he never intended to say that most Christians oppose same sex marriage - so I got my point across with him.It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole. Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it. My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error.
This fits into a lot of the things you hear Christians saying on the news: The evidence doesn't align with my world view and is therefor irrelevant.
You made a claim that Sol disagreed with. He came up with a hypothesis that perhaps contradicted your claim. You said you didn't care to research it any further. If it wasn't relevant in the first place then why did you bring it up? This is not how you convince anybody of your point of view.
QuoteThere are a couple things I think we can agree on here: 1) Gays had a hard time achieving equality and 2) This was do in large part to religious parties standing in the way. You say that most Christians supported same sex marriage. If we were to assume that is true, how do you explain why it was the elected representatives, who mostly self define as Christian, that were the spearhead preventing gay rights?
We don't have to assume - I have now twice provided evidence. And the explanation for why some Christians spearheaded preventing gay rights is easy - they're in the minority. No one said ALL Christians supported same sex marriage.
You missed my point. The people in power that apposed gay rights were representatives of the people. They were elected into office, sometimes with a majority vote. These officials were elected by a country that is a majority Christian. Each person has one vote. How is it that these representatives were against gay rights if the majority of Christians are for gay rights? They were not elected by a minority, but they did not share the views of their constituents. How do you explain that discrepancy? And if you can't explain it (it's entirely possible that it cannot be explained) how do you explain why these same constituents did not speak out against their representatives in this matter?
Look up gerrymandering.
Why did gays have to fight so hard and long if everybody was in favor of their equality?
That amused me, especially the line on the bottom. :)It seems a mistake to respond to any of your points - it only goes down a rabbit hole. Perhaps you're right about Russia and China, honestly I don't care to research it. My original point was only to point out that large majorities of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage, and blaming all of a group for the actions of a minority is a classic logic error.
This fits into a lot of the things you hear Christians saying on the news: The evidence doesn't align with my world view and is therefor irrelevant. Maybe Sol's wrong - but I guess we'll never know since it's apparently not worthy of research or debate. That doesn't mean it's a "rabbit hole" however.
There are a couple things I think we can agree on here: 1) Gays had a hard time achieving equality and 2) This was do in large part to religious parties standing in the way. You say that most Christians supported same sex marriage. If we were to assume that is true, how do you explain why it was the elected representatives, who mostly self define as Christian, that were the spearhead preventing gay rights?
Here is a relavent image I found today. Too large to embed, please enjoy!
http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/05/1-onCEha4zx1dnu0crkEahcg.png
What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity. Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm bacon....), stoning adulterers etc. We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.
- eating shell fish
- getting tattooed
- masturbating
- watching porn
- gossiping
- eating too much
- playing football
- working every day of the week
Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.
What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity. Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm bacon....), stoning adulterers etc. We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.
- eating shell fish
- getting tattooed
- masturbating
- watching porn
- gossiping
- eating too much
- playing football
- working every day of the week
Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.
Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves. http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm
Carry on.
Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament.What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity. Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm bacon....), stoning adulterers etc. We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.
- eating shell fish
- getting tattooed
- masturbating
- watching porn
- gossiping
- eating too much
- playing football
- working every day of the week
Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.
Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves. http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm
Carry on.
Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.
ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.
Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament.What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity. Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm bacon....), stoning adulterers etc. We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.
- eating shell fish
- getting tattooed
- masturbating
- watching porn
- gossiping
- eating too much
- playing football
- working every day of the week
Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.
Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves. http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm
Carry on.
Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.
ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.
Some either disregard the letters Paul wrote (that make up the bulk of the NT) or feel that the discussions of social issues were relevant only to that timeframe.Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament.What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity. Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm bacon....), stoning adulterers etc. We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.
- eating shell fish
- getting tattooed
- masturbating
- watching porn
- gossiping
- eating too much
- playing football
- working every day of the week
Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.
Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves. http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm
Carry on.
Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.
ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.
Huh. I stand corrected. Well, then, why don't all Christians condemn homosexuality, if the New Testament is what they follow?
(And of course, again, that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.)
Some either disregard the letters Paul wrote (that make up the bulk of the NT) or feel that the discussions of social issues were relevant only to that timeframe.Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament.What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity. Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm bacon....), stoning adulterers etc. We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.
- eating shell fish
- getting tattooed
- masturbating
- watching porn
- gossiping
- eating too much
- playing football
- working every day of the week
Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.
Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves. http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm
Carry on.
Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.
ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.
Huh. I stand corrected. Well, then, why don't all Christians condemn homosexuality, if the New Testament is what they follow?
(And of course, again, that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.)
For a more detailed answer I can ask at the next meeting. ; )
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their
lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Sigh. I guess I forgot the cardinal rule of trying to make sense of people: they believe whatever they want to believe, randomly choosing what they think the important parts and ignoring the rest.
Notice how Kris said it's a cardinal rule of people, not Christians.
Sigh. I guess I forgot the cardinal rule of trying to make sense of people: they believe whatever they want to believe, randomly choosing what they think the important parts and ignoring the rest.
That's not a trait unique to Christianity. That's one of the problems when we try and put people into homogeneous groups. Often they are not nearly as similar as we think they are.
Notice how Kris said it's a cardinal rule of people, not Christians.
Sigh. I guess I forgot the cardinal rule of trying to make sense of people: they believe whatever they want to believe, randomly choosing what they think the important parts and ignoring the rest.
That's not a trait unique to Christianity. That's one of the problems when we try and put people into homogeneous groups. Often they are not nearly as similar as we think they are.
Why should anyone else's religious beliefs effect my decision to marry?
Why should anyone else's religious beliefs effect my decision to marry?
Christians are people too, my friend.
Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament.What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity. Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm bacon....), stoning adulterers etc. We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.
- eating shell fish
- getting tattooed
- masturbating
- watching porn
- gossiping
- eating too much
- playing football
- working every day of the week
Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.
Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves. http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm
Carry on.
Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.
ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.
Huh. I stand corrected. Well, then, why don't all Christians condemn homosexuality, if the New Testament is what they follow?
(And of course, again, that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.)
Being drunk is condemned in the same verse and in the same fashion as homosexuality in the NT. Why don't all Christians condemn drunkenness, require vows of alcohol abstinence, and push to ban alcohol? Same with premarital sex and divorce?
Oh, maybe it's because they like to drink, and approximately 97% of people have premarital sex, and half of people get divorced. Maybe it's easier to discriminate against a small minority instead of against pretty much everyone.
Some either disregard the letters Paul wrote (that make up the bulk of the NT) or feel that the discussions of social issues were relevant only to that timeframe.Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament.What I find hilarious is that many religious people will pick and choose which parts of their respective doctrines to follow depending on their own desires. For example, many a Christian that was interviewed about gay marriage were, unsurprisingly, against it. When asked how many of them had been divorced, many of them had been! Both things are banned in the bible, but only one is followed.Not interested in wading into this debate, but the above is an often misunderstood concept of Christianity. Most Christians don't follow Old Testament rules and laws against shellfish, bacon (mmmmm bacon....), stoning adulterers etc. We view the old testament law has been perfected by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.
- eating shell fish
- getting tattooed
- masturbating
- watching porn
- gossiping
- eating too much
- playing football
- working every day of the week
Why are any of these things less important than being gay and getting married? They are all banned in the bible.
Here's a quick read on the topic for anyone who wants to educate themselves. http://www.bible-apologetics.com/articles/otntlaw.htm
Carry on.
Yes, that's true... But the ones who are most virulently against homosexuality are using an Old Testament argument. Which means, for consistency they ought also to be condemning the things above.
ETA: and If they were consistent, and condemned homosexuality, but also didn't eat shellfish, or have tattoos, or wear clothing of more than one fiber, I'd be pretty impressed... But that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.
Huh. I stand corrected. Well, then, why don't all Christians condemn homosexuality, if the New Testament is what they follow?
(And of course, again, that still wouldn't give them the right to impose their ways on others.)
For a more detailed answer I can ask at the next meeting. ; )
Sigh. I guess I forgot the cardinal rule of trying to make sense of people: they believe whatever they want to believe, randomly choosing what they think the important parts and ignoring the rest.
The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.
The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.
Not an argument, but an honest question - Do you have a source or basis for that? I'd like to see that viewpoint. Not asking for a discussion or to tear you apart, just curious.
The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.
Not an argument, but an honest question - Do you have a source or basis for that? I'd like to see that viewpoint. Not asking for a discussion or to tear you apart, just curious.
The Wikipedia article on the subject is a pretty good introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
Christians are people too, my friend.
When did I say or imply that? What I and I assume what I Kris meant as well is that the cardinal rule applies to all people including Christians
Being drunk is condemned in the same verse and in the same fashion as homosexuality in the NT. Why don't all Christians condemn drunkenness, require vows of alcohol abstinence, and push to ban alcohol? Same with premarital sex and divorce?
Oh, maybe it's because they like to drink, and approximately 97% of people have premarital sex, and half of people get divorced. Maybe it's easier to discriminate against a small minority instead of against pretty much everyone.
Have you been to a baptist/fundamentalist church? I assure you some Baptists/fundamentalist congregations condemn those things as well. I'm not saying some of the attendees aren't doing those things, but the church leadership is not preaching that its ok or ignoring it.
Did you miss the part about all people (Christians included) having different beliefs. That's why all Christians are not condemning those things or gay relationships or gay marriage.
The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.
Support for Inerrancy from the Teachings of Christ
A study of what Jesus said about the Bible reveals not only His belief in its verbal, plenary inspiration, but that He also believed it was inerrant. In fact, the greatest testimony to the authenticity of the Bible as God’s inspired and inerrant Word is the Lord Jesus. Why is His testimony so important? Because God authenticated and proved Him to be His own divine Son by the resurrection (cf. Acts 2:22-36; 4:8-12; 17:30-31; Rom. 1:4). Christ not only clearly confirmed the authority of the Old Testament, but He specifically promised the New Testament.
Note what Christ taught about the inspiration of the Old Testament:
(1) Its entirety; the whole of the Bible is inspired (Matt. 4:4; 5:17-18). In Matthew 4:4, Jesus responded to Satan’s temptation by affirming verbal plenary inspiration when He said, man is to live by every word (plenary) that proceeds out of the mouth of God (inspiration). In Matthew 5:17-18, Christ promised that the entire Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, would be fulfilled, not abolished. In fact, He declared that not even the smallest Hebrew letter, the yodh, which looks like an apostrophe (‘), or stroke of a letter, a small distinguishing extension or protrusion of several Hebrews letters (cf. the extension on the letter R with it absence on the letter P), would pass away until all is fulfilled. Christ’s point is that it is all inspired and true and will be fulfilled.
(2) Its historicity; He spoke of the Old Testament in terms of actual history. Adam and Eve were two human beings, created by God in the beginning, who lived and acted in certain ways (Matt. 19:3-5; Mark 10:6-8). He spoke of Jonah and his experience in the belly of the great fish as an historical event (Matt. 12:40). He also verified the events of the flood in Noah’s day along with the ark (Matt. 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27). He verified God’s destruction of Sodom and the historicity of Lot and his wife (Matt. 10:15; Luke 17:28-29). These are only a few illustrations; many others exist.
(3) Its reliability; because it is God’s word, the Scripture must be fulfilled (Matt. 26:54).
(4) Its sufficiency; it is sufficient to witness to the truth of God and His salvation (Luke 16:31).
(5) Its indestructibility; heaven and earth will not pass away until it is all fulfilled. Nothing can stop its fulfillment (Matt. 5:17-18).
(6) Its unity; the whole of the Bible speaks and witnesses to the person and work of Christ (Luke 24:27, 44).
(7) Its inerrancy; men are often in error, but the Bible is not; it is truth (Matt. 22:29; John 17:17).
(8) Its infallibility; the Bible cannot be broken, it always stands the test (John 10:35).
The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.
If I'd made these statements on a different topic, I know you'd immediately challenge them and ask me for references :)
I don't know what "most Christians" agree with, or when those beliefs evolved into what they are today. But what we're talking about is the beliefs asserted by people who are the Christian leadership in the country who seem to have a large number of followers and have a large influence on public policy. They are the ones who talk about inerrancy and literalist interpretations of the Bible (on some issues--ignoring others of course).
The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.
If I'd made these statements on a different topic, I know you'd immediately challenge them and ask me for references :)
I don't know what "most Christians" agree with, or when those beliefs evolved into what they are today. But what we're talking about is the beliefs asserted by people who are the Christian leadership in the country who seem to have a large number of followers and have a large influence on public policy. They are the ones who talk about inerrancy and literalist interpretations of the Bible (on some issues--ignoring others of course).
So there are really at least two conversations going on. The first is that there is a group of people attempting to use religion as a justification to deny same-sex marriage. And that's what you're talking about.
The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage. This is factually inaccurate. I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US.
Several people were wondering how this could be true given some quotation from the bible. Well, that's because most Christians don't believe that the bible is the literal word of God.
I don't think it is the majority of Christians, but it my experience, it is the majority of leadership among Christians. And when you fiscally support or vote based on your religious leadership, you can't not be held responsible. For example, most Catholic women have used birth control yet the Catholic leadership is very opposed to birth control. But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control. Is it reasonable to say, Catholics are opposed to birth control even when the majority isn't? Well given the leadership is and that leadership actively stops other from using it, yes. If you join a group whose rules state one thing, you can't be angry when outsiders think you agree with you. By joining that group you are supporting the leadership.The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.
If I'd made these statements on a different topic, I know you'd immediately challenge them and ask me for references :)
I don't know what "most Christians" agree with, or when those beliefs evolved into what they are today. But what we're talking about is the beliefs asserted by people who are the Christian leadership in the country who seem to have a large number of followers and have a large influence on public policy. They are the ones who talk about inerrancy and literalist interpretations of the Bible (on some issues--ignoring others of course).
So there are really at least two conversations going on. The first is that there is a group of people attempting to use religion as a justification to deny same-sex marriage. And that's what you're talking about.
The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage. This is factually inaccurate. I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US.
Several people were wondering how this could be true given some quotation from the bible. Well, that's because most Christians don't believe that the bible is the literal word of God.
The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage. This is factually inaccurate. I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US.
The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.
If I'd made these statements on a different topic, I know you'd immediately challenge them and ask me for references :)
I don't know what "most Christians" agree with, or when those beliefs evolved into what they are today. But what we're talking about is the beliefs asserted by people who are the Christian leadership in the country who seem to have a large number of followers and have a large influence on public policy. They are the ones who talk about inerrancy and literalist interpretations of the Bible (on some issues--ignoring others of course).
So there are really at least two conversations going on. The first is that there is a group of people attempting to use religion as a justification to deny same-sex marriage. And that's what you're talking about.
The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage. This is factually inaccurate. I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US.
Several people were wondering how this could be true given some quotation from the bible. Well, that's because most Christians don't believe that the bible is the literal word of God.
What we have here is a failure to communicate!
If what you say is true, it sounds like lots of lawmakers around the country are ignoring the general opinions of their constituents and instead voting with their individual party/religious views.
But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control.Is there an employment restriction that prevents an employee from using birth control? Or is it a question of whether the insurance policy will pick up the cost?
The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage. This is factually inaccurate. I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US.
I think we can grant you that most Christian s *currently* support same-sex marriage. The argument from the other side is that *in the past* Christians did not approve so highly and were *at that time* the main cause of such denial of rights which by default carries over to *today* leaving religion still to blame. Hopefully this clarifies the argument (unless I'm mistaken)
More than just Christians have shifted on this issue.Very true: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-clinton-twisty-paths-gay-marriage-32068534
Depending on the employer it can be both, however, no other class of drugs can be refused to be covered by your employer which I consider almost as bad. The exception is California which does not allow such foolishness. There may be other states that don't allow you to discriminate, but I don't know how they responded to hobby lobby.But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control.Is there an employment restriction that prevents an employee from using birth control? Or is it a question of whether the insurance policy will pick up the cost?
The idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is a recent development in the history of Christianity (considering the length of the history of Christianity) and not one that most Christians agree with.
If I'd made these statements on a different topic, I know you'd immediately challenge them and ask me for references :)
I don't know what "most Christians" agree with, or when those beliefs evolved into what they are today. But what we're talking about is the beliefs asserted by people who are the Christian leadership in the country who seem to have a large number of followers and have a large influence on public policy. They are the ones who talk about inerrancy and literalist interpretations of the Bible (on some issues--ignoring others of course).
So there are really at least two conversations going on. The first is that there is a group of people attempting to use religion as a justification to deny same-sex marriage. And that's what you're talking about.
The second conversation is using that minority of opinions to say that religious people in general, or Christians in general, oppose social progress and same-sex marriage. This is factually inaccurate. I've provided several sources that most members of most Christian denominations support same-sex marriage in the US.
Several people were wondering how this could be true given some quotation from the bible. Well, that's because most Christians don't believe that the bible is the literal word of God.
What we have here is a failure to communicate!
If what you say is true, it sounds like lots of lawmakers around the country are ignoring the general opinions of their constituents and instead voting with their individual party/religious views.
I think there are two issues here. One, yes, some lawmakers are ignoring the general opinions of their constituents and vote with their individual party/religious views. Second, (and I think larger although I don't have any data on the relative amounts) a lot of the religious opposition comes from certain denominations dominant in certain geographics regions - for example, evangelical Christians. There are 15 states where white evangelical Christians are the largest religious group (not tied, and I would prefer data that didn't divide by race, but this is what I found). 13 of these states have net disapproval of same sex marriage, accounting for a large majority of the 17 states that have net disapproval of same-sex marriage according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#By_state
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/02/26/the-religious-states-of-america-in-22-maps/
But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control.Is there an employment restriction that prevents an employee from using birth control? Or is it a question of whether the insurance policy will pick up the cost?
Notice how Kris said it's a cardinal rule of people, not Christians.
Sigh. I guess I forgot the cardinal rule of trying to make sense of people: they believe whatever they want to believe, randomly choosing what they think the important parts and ignoring the rest.
That's not a trait unique to Christianity. That's one of the problems when we try and put people into homogeneous groups. Often they are not nearly as similar as we think they are.
Employees of the Madison Catholic Diocese were warned in 2010 that if they used birth control, they could face termination.But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control.Is there an employment restriction that prevents an employee from using birth control? Or is it a question of whether the insurance policy will pick up the cost?
I have heard of religious employers refusing to hire someone because they had sex outside of marriage. Or firing them because they had sex outside of marriage. But I don't know about preventing them from using birth control.
Employees of the Madison Catholic Diocese were warned in 2010 that if they used birth control, they could face termination.But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control.Is there an employment restriction that prevents an employee from using birth control? Or is it a question of whether the insurance policy will pick up the cost?
I have heard of religious employers refusing to hire someone because they had sex outside of marriage. Or firing them because they had sex outside of marriage. But I don't know about preventing them from using birth control.
Kelly Romenesko was fired from her 7 year job teaching French at two Wisconsin Catholic schools because she and her husband used in vitro fertilization to become pregnant.
I went to Catholic school from first through high school. It happens a lot.
I agree with you but when the Supreme Court says "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.", it is obvious that they are willing to put the medical decisions regarding reproductive health as a lower priority than ANY of other medical care.Employees of the Madison Catholic Diocese were warned in 2010 that if they used birth control, they could face termination.But if you go to a Catholic hospital or are employed by one, you can't get birth control.Is there an employment restriction that prevents an employee from using birth control? Or is it a question of whether the insurance policy will pick up the cost?
I have heard of religious employers refusing to hire someone because they had sex outside of marriage. Or firing them because they had sex outside of marriage. But I don't know about preventing them from using birth control.
Kelly Romenesko was fired from her 7 year job teaching French at two Wisconsin Catholic schools because she and her husband used in vitro fertilization to become pregnant.
I went to Catholic school from first through high school. It happens a lot.
I feel like that should be illegal. How is it your employer's business what medical care you get? Or how you choose to get pregnant?
A couple of sites with good, although far from identical, perspectives:
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/states-take-action-stop-bosses%E2%80%99-religious-beliefs-trumping-women%E2%80%99s-reproductive-health-care
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/facts-liberals-dont-want-you-to-hear-how-many-kinds-of-contraception-hobby-lobby-offers-its-employees
And a recent comment indicating that, in practice, all but the most extreme on either side may end up satisfied:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2015/06/25/hobby-lobby-fall-out/
It's interesting that the article is totally misinterpreting the tweet they put in the article. Fluke accurately characterizes the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. But then she's called a liar. And then nothing is provided to contradict the tweet.Definitely open for interpretation. E.g., does the tweet, "Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control," mean that an employer may decline to provide such coverage, or does it mean an employer may prevent an employee from purchasing such coverage elsewhere?
Which do the MDs agree with? What are the side effects of those birth control pills in comparison to other prescription drugs vs over the counter drugs? How likely can you OD and what are complication/risks of such? Let's remove social policy and go with medical reasoning before anything, because really if it is medically contraindicated that should overrule social policy, IMO. Then again, Hobby won even though their position had nothing to do with medical fact, so maybe reality does not matter in medical matters, lol.It's interesting that the article is totally misinterpreting the tweet they put in the article. Fluke accurately characterizes the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. But then she's called a liar. And then nothing is provided to contradict the tweet.Definitely open for interpretation. E.g., does the tweet, "Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control," mean that an employer may decline to provide such coverage, or does it mean an employer may prevent an employee from purchasing such coverage elsewhere?
And in another politics-makes-strange-bedfellows twist, there's the Republican proposal to allow birth control to be sold over the counter (without prescription) that Democrats oppose. Of course both sides claim to have good reasons for their positions....
Which do the MDs agree with? What are the side effects of those birth control pills in comparison to other prescription drugs vs over the counter drugs? How likely can you OD and what are complication/risks of such? Let's remove social policy and go with medical reasoning before anything, because really if it is medically contraindicated that should overrule social policy, IMO.
Thank you for posting that. I do wonder if opinions/data have changed from 2012 (when it was published) and 2004 (when some of the data was collected) and now with the ACA.Which do the MDs agree with? What are the side effects of those birth control pills in comparison to other prescription drugs vs over the counter drugs? How likely can you OD and what are complication/risks of such? Let's remove social policy and go with medical reasoning before anything, because really if it is medically contraindicated that should overrule social policy, IMO.
In this case, it appears the MDs generally agree with the Republicans. E.g., http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Gynecologic-Practice/Over-the-Counter-Access-to-Oral-Contraceptives and http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/15/why-republicans-are-pushing-for-over-the-counter-birth-control/.
Of course there are counterarguments from various perspectives.
It's interesting that the article is totally misinterpreting the tweet they put in the article. Fluke accurately characterizes the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. But then she's called a liar. And then nothing is provided to contradict the tweet.Definitely open for interpretation. E.g., does the tweet, "Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control," mean that an employer may decline to provide such coverage, or does it mean an employer may prevent an employee from purchasing such coverage elsewhere?
And in another politics-makes-strange-bedfellows twist, there's the Republican proposal to allow birth control to be sold over the counter (without prescription) that Democrats oppose. Of course both sides claim to have good reasons for their positions....
Which do the MDs agree with? What are the side effects of those birth control pills in comparison to other prescription drugs vs over the counter drugs? How likely can you OD and what are complication/risks of such? Let's remove social policy and go with medical reasoning before anything, because really if it is medically contraindicated that should overrule social policy, IMO. Then again, Hobby won even though their position had nothing to do with medical fact, so maybe reality does not matter in medical matters, lol.It's interesting that the article is totally misinterpreting the tweet they put in the article. Fluke accurately characterizes the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. But then she's called a liar. And then nothing is provided to contradict the tweet.Definitely open for interpretation. E.g., does the tweet, "Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control," mean that an employer may decline to provide such coverage, or does it mean an employer may prevent an employee from purchasing such coverage elsewhere?
And in another politics-makes-strange-bedfellows twist, there's the Republican proposal to allow birth control to be sold over the counter (without prescription) that Democrats oppose. Of course both sides claim to have good reasons for their positions....
My guess is that Republicans are trying this tactic because it will remove a plank of the argument about the 'war against women'. Since it was clearly conservative groups that worked to strike down the requirement for contraceptive coverage for some employer sponsored plans, they are associated with restricting access to contraceptives for women. By allowing it to be OTC, they 1) don't anger the religious employer groups, and 2) provide more convenient access to it for women. So it makes the argument about contraceptives (which are used by almost 100% of women at some point in their life) have less political blowback against the party. With all the Republican candidates talking about rape and whether it was a legitimate rape and passing many laws around the country to restrict or effectively eliminate abortion access in a state and trying to block equal pay for women laws, etc, they've taken quite a beating on women's issues. This is a step to change the narrative.Except that most poor women can't afford many types of birth control, some can't even afford birth control pills which would keep them from access it. There have been studies that show an IUD being one of the most effective means of birth control (less chance of user error), but is it the number one method, no. Because it is too costly. In addition, not every birth control works for each woman, and for pain relief, it can become ineffective. The only one that works for me now, after many years on is $50 every month. Most poor Americans don't have an extra $600 laying around.
My guess is that Republicans are trying this tactic because it will remove a plank of the argument about the 'war against women'.I tend to agree.
Why do discussions of same sex marriage always become debates about Christianity?
Wait there is ANY? Arebelspy, you have been holding out on us.Why do discussions of same sex marriage always become debates about Christianity?
Because they tend to be the people against it. There's not many non-religious arguments against it.
Maybe someone has mentioned this during this thread, but I missed it because, after reading this thread for a while, I decided I didn't want to read it any longer.We have tried and come up with same issues gay marriage activist get. "Well I don't believe it". You can show that it was allowed by the Church up to a certain point. You can show that prior to a certain point it has not CNS. You can explain that we all have the right of autonomy and that if the government would not force you to give blood/marrow/organs (even as a corpse) to keep a living human alive, they should not require it from a woman with a fetus. None of that seems to matter. It boils down to, "My religion says what you are doing is icky so I am going to try to force my morals on you". It has nothing to do with a lack of understand.
I am a Christian, and I think the Christians who protest gay marriage are wrong. There is nothing in the Bible against gay marriage...nothing at all. There are several verses addressing the act of homosexual sex, but no verses in which God or Jesus condemns the joining in marriage of two women or two men.
I think those Christians opposed to gay marriage should instead use their energy to protest against the homosexual act. If they wait until the marriage ceremony to protest, they have likely missed several occurrences of what they consider sin.
But wait! Don't sinners marry all the time? Gossipers, liars, gluttonous people...they all marry, and there is no hue and cry from the Christian community about those people getting married, even though those sins are mentioned in the Bible. (Some ministers do, however, refuse to marry those they know to be actively, unrepentantly, committing some sort of sin.) Protesting the act of homosexual sex, to me, seems more in line with the verses often quoted from the Bible than protesting gay marriage.
It also seems to me this issue is similar to common "pro-choice" abortion arguments—there is a lack of understanding about the actual issue. The issue, I think, is that pro-life Christians get this main argument from pro-choice people: "It's the woman's right to choose!"
But those who argue this are missing the point entirely. They need to focus on convincing the pro-life Christians that life does NOT begin at conception, and, thus, abortion is not murder. Sure, anyone walking down the street can "choose" to murder someone, but everyone says that's wrong. If ending the life of a fetus/embryo/baby while inside the womb is not murder, then Christians, I assume, would be quite all right with a woman's right to choose. (And I'm not even going to get into being against abortion but being for capital punishment.)
Note I have not stated my personal opinions on gay marriage, homosexual sex, or abortion. I am stating what I have observed about the arguments and disagreements that I see occur in this forum, on TV, and during conversations.
Wait there is ANY? Arebelspy, you have been holding out on us.Why do discussions of same sex marriage always become debates about Christianity?
Because they tend to be the people against it. There's not many non-religious arguments against it.
Wait there is ANY? Arebelspy, you have been holding out on us.Why do discussions of same sex marriage always become debates about Christianity?
Because they tend to be the people against it. There's not many non-religious arguments against it.
I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.
I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.
States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.
The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.
It's the same thing with gay marriage. The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons. It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language.
Arguments are not improved or strengthened by using code words for what you really mean. If what you really want is for everyone to follow your interpretation of an ancient spiritual text, just come out and say it. Don't lie to us about your desire to uphold the Constitution.
the Christians who protest gay marriage are wrong.
Christians opposed to gay marriage should instead use their energy to protest against the homosexual act.
But wait! Don't sinners marry all the time? Gossipers, liars, gluttonous people...they all marry, and there is no hue and cry from the Christian community about those people getting married, even though those sins are mentioned in the Bible. (Some ministers do, however, refuse to marry those they know to be actively, unrepentantly, committing some sort of sin.) Protesting the act of homosexual sex, to me, seems more in line with the verses often quoted from the Bible than protesting gay marriage.
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.--Luke 6:42
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.--Jesus in John 8:7
AlsoQuoteSo when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.--Jesus in John 8:7
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you,"Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
"Then neither do I condemn you,"Jesus declared.
I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.
States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.
The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.
It's the same thing with gay marriage. The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons. It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language.
None of that is actually true. And if you look at evolutionary psychology there is a benefit to villages in which there are adults without children.I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.
States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.
The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.
This is not true, is it. After all most people in the South didn't have slaves, did they?
And didn't the South pay more than their fair share in taxation? Hence, it really is about States rights not to be overtaxed.
Look, I'm not american but most of you lot are, don't you lot actually know this?Quote
It's the same thing with gay marriage. The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons. It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language.
Perhaps not.
Consider this, what happened before the govt/religion stuck its nose in.
People formed monoganous pair bonds because it is better for bringing up children.
Homosexuals didn't have children so no point the wider society celebtationg their union. Also consider that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than other pair bondings.
Also consider that if the govt can legislate for homosexual marriage what else can they do. Legalise marriage to your pet goat, a housebrick?
People in the South "benefitted" from slavery, even if they did not own slaves, because it made goods cheaper for them. And they may have had jobs overseeing slaves. And it gave them a class of people to feel superior to. When you're a poor, backwater, uneducated white person, you still have the slaves to look down on.
Plus, it's not the common person who sets policy in our country. It's the rich and powerful. The plantation owners in those days. Back then we didn't even have direct election of senators or the right for women to vote.
People in the South "benefitted" from slavery, even if they did not own slaves, because it made goods cheaper for them. And they may have had jobs overseeing slaves. And it gave them a class of people to feel superior to. When you're a poor, backwater, uneducated white person, you still have the slaves to look down on.
.
I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.
States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.
The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.
This is not true, is it. After all most people in the South didn't have slaves, did they?
And didn't the South pay more than their fair share in taxation? Hence, it really is about States rights not to be overtaxed.
Look, I'm not american but most of you lot are, don't you lot actually know this?
I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.
States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.
The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.
It's the same thing with gay marriage. The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons. It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language.
Arguments are not improved or strengthened by using code words for what you really mean. If what you really want is for everyone to follow your interpretation of an ancient spiritual text, just come out and say it. Don't lie to us about your desire to uphold the Constitution.
But I thought the constitution was written by God. Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets? We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?
What was that treaty where a founding father specifically said that as the US was not a Christian nation they could be allied with a Muslim nation. Ach, this is going to drive me nuts until I remember or someone takes pity on me. :)I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.
States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.
The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.
It's the same thing with gay marriage. The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons. It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language.
Arguments are not improved or strengthened by using code words for what you really mean. If what you really want is for everyone to follow your interpretation of an ancient spiritual text, just come out and say it. Don't lie to us about your desire to uphold the Constitution.
But I thought the constitution was written by God. Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets? We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?
Maybe this is sarcasm...?
No, legally speaking vis-a-vis the Constitution, we are NOT a Christian nation. James Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention (available here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp)) contain almost no reference to God, religion or Christianity. The only time the Founders discussed the topic was when they agreed to include Article VI which bans religious tests for those who might hold office.
Culturally, we may be a Christian nation, but legally we are secular. That's a key distinction.
One of the things that has long puzzled me in the debate over same-sex marriage (SSM) is the idea that somehow granting marriage licenses would redefine marriage. The license is secular, and doesn't really change what the ceremony an individual couple would choose to do or how they would lead their shared lives. This has long struck me as one of the many instances of code language or use of phrasing to invoke another set of concepts discussed in social circles I am not actively involved in. A friend passed this article around earlier today, and while I do not think the thesis of the piece is universally applicable across those who oppose SSM, I think it illuminates a strong thread in the fabric of the debate and is worth a read. It makes a reasonable case for what is invoked the "redefinition" language beyond just face value text of the language.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/gay-marriage-scotus-ross-douthat-oppression-vs-love
Edit: I would really like to hear the feedback on this from those who oppose SSM. While the language of the article may be seen as confrontational, the concept of redefining roles within a marriage seems worthy of feedback.
People in the South "benefitted" from slavery, even if they did not own slaves, because it made goods cheaper for them. And they may have had jobs overseeing slaves. And it gave them a class of people to feel superior to. When you're a poor, backwater, uneducated white person, you still have the slaves to look down on.
Plus, it's not the common person who sets policy in our country. It's the rich and powerful. The plantation owners in those days. Back then we didn't even have direct election of senators or the right for women to vote.
I think it is so interesting that in this discussion that gays are compared to blacks -- when the black population at large is like 80-90% opposed to gays and given the opportunity would vote them out of the country. Makes for an interesting juxtaposition. It is also interesting that a high percentage of blacks self identify as Baptist Christians.
I also find the word "gay" to be a brilliant rebranding strategy.
But I thought the constitution was written by God. Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets? We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?
Maybe this is sarcasm...?
Wait... what? You can be gay and you can get married, but the the moment you make love it's wrong? Christians have no right whatsoever to "protest" what other non-believers do in the privacy of their own home at all. Your line of reasoning seems like you're trying to reconcile what the supreme court has ruled, but still hold onto intolerance with both hands.
None of that is actually true. And if you look at evolutionary psychology there is a benefit to villages in which there are adults without children.I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.
States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.
The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.
This is not true, is it. After all most people in the South didn't have slaves, did they?
And didn't the South pay more than their fair share in taxation? Hence, it really is about States rights not to be overtaxed.
Look, I'm not american but most of you lot are, don't you lot actually know this?Quote
It's the same thing with gay marriage. The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons. It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language.
Perhaps not.
Consider this, what happened before the govt/religion stuck its nose in.
People formed monoganous pair bonds because it is better for bringing up children.
Homosexuals didn't have children so no point the wider society celebtationg their union. Also consider that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than other pair bondings.
Also consider that if the govt can legislate for homosexual marriage what else can they do. Legalise marriage to your pet goat, a housebrick?
Also, you don't seem to understand the requirement for consent in marriage do you?
And btw, just because the majority did not have slave did not mean the majority was not pro-slavery. I understand that if you are not from our country, you might not have a full breath of education in regards to our civil war but then you might not want to tell an American that their understand is incorrect. Unless of course you have studied this academically and have citations to support your hypothesis that the civil war was not about slavery other than the absurd idea that because someone could not afford a slave means that they were not pro-slavery.
What was that treaty where a founding father specifically said that as the US was not a Christian nation they could be allied with a Muslim nation. Ach, this is going to drive me nuts until I remember or someone takes pity on me. :)I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.
States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.
The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.
It's the same thing with gay marriage. The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons. It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language.
Arguments are not improved or strengthened by using code words for what you really mean. If what you really want is for everyone to follow your interpretation of an ancient spiritual text, just come out and say it. Don't lie to us about your desire to uphold the Constitution.
But I thought the constitution was written by God. Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets? We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?
Maybe this is sarcasm...?
No, legally speaking vis-a-vis the Constitution, we are NOT a Christian nation. James Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention (available here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp)) contain almost no reference to God, religion or Christianity. The only time the Founders discussed the topic was when they agreed to include Article VI which bans religious tests for those who might hold office.
Culturally, we may be a Christian nation, but legally we are secular. That's a key distinction.
But I thought the constitution was written by God. Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets? We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?
Maybe this is sarcasm...?
Yes, it was.
I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.
States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.
The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.
This is not true, is it. After all most people in the South didn't have slaves, did they?
And didn't the South pay more than their fair share in taxation? Hence, it really is about States rights not to be overtaxed.
Look, I'm not american but most of you lot are, don't you lot actually know this?
No, it's pretty much true (they wanted some other slave-related rights too, like the ability to take their slaves with them when they traveled to states that outlawed slavery). You should learn more history before lecturing people who have their facts correct. Here's a good start: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/01/why-do-people-believe-myths-about-the-confederacy-because-our-textbooks-and-monuments-are-wrong/?hpid=z3
It's incredible how many times on this thread your sarcasm has been interpreted otherwise (or at the very least, been possibly confused)But I thought the constitution was written by God. Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets? We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?
Maybe this is sarcasm...?
Yes, it was.
Yes, very much so. Apologies for not indicating that. I forgot about Poe's Law - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law - Poe's law is an internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extremism are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of extremism.
However, I am somewhat perturbed that it is written by a professor of sociology instead of a professor of history who would actually be informed about their specialist subject and can be expected to know more than a layman. After all, this is a rather important part of american history.
Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?
Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?
Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?
Look at all the economically disadvantaged persons in the south who vote Republican despite the fact that it is manifestly not in their own financial best interest. The same people who are getting welfare and public assistance voting into office those that would take the safety net out from under them and also complaining about freeloaders at the same time (I'm not making a value judgement about them here). Those types of mental gymnastics are entirely consistent with what you say above. Americans have an ability to align themselves with the place they would like to be, or aspire to be, rather than with the position they are actually in. Those subsistence farmers may not have owned slaves, but they may have wanted the option to.
However, I am somewhat perturbed that it is written by a professor of sociology instead of a professor of history who would actually be informed about their specialist subject and can be expected to know more than a layman. After all, this is a rather important part of american history.
Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?
What was that treaty where a founding father specifically said that as the US was not a Christian nation they could be allied with a Muslim nation. Ach, this is going to drive me nuts until I remember or someone takes pity on me. :)
The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816, Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796.
"ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp)
I think the idea behind what you quoted (which I hope was somewhat facetious) was not that gay married people shouldn't have sex; but that if Christians truly believe they are protecting the sinner by not allowing them to sin; they really need to focus earlier.
I like you. If you think I am going to hell, can I at least have some fun until I get there? :DI think the idea behind what you quoted (which I hope was somewhat facetious) was not that gay married people shouldn't have sex; but that if Christians truly believe they are protecting the sinner by not allowing them to sin; they really need to focus earlier.
I don't fully understand why so many of my fellow Christians are so concerned with the behavior of unbelievers. If somebody isn't saved in the Christian sense, then what difference do his actions make? Is it just to try to keep the general culture more in line with Christian ideals? I don't think that is sufficient reason to try to control other people. I believe that instead of trying to use laws to force non-believers to conform to Christian ideals of behavior, we should be trying to introduce them to Jesus and let Him change them.
I think the idea behind what you quoted (which I hope was somewhat facetious) was not that gay married people shouldn't have sex; but that if Christians truly believe they are protecting the sinner by not allowing them to sin; they really need to focus earlier.
I don't fully understand why so many of my fellow Christians are so concerned with the behavior of unbelievers. If somebody isn't saved in the Christian sense, then what difference do his actions make? Is it just to try to keep the general culture more in line with Christian ideals? I don't think that is sufficient reason to try to control other people. I believe that instead of trying to use laws to force non-believers to conform to Christian ideals of behavior, we should be trying to introduce them to Jesus and let Him change them.
Normally when someone bolds something, that is what they are referencing. So, to be even more clear, your statement of "People formed monoganous pair bonds because it is better for bringing up children.None of that is actually true. And if you look at evolutionary psychology there is a benefit to villages in which there are adults without children.I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.
States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.
The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.
This is not true, is it. After all most people in the South didn't have slaves, did they?
And didn't the South pay more than their fair share in taxation? Hence, it really is about States rights not to be overtaxed.
Look, I'm not american but most of you lot are, don't you lot actually know this?Quote
It's the same thing with gay marriage. The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons. It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language.
Perhaps not.
Consider this, what happened before the govt/religion stuck its nose in.
People formed monoganous pair bonds because it is better for bringing up children.
Homosexuals didn't have children so no point the wider society celebtationg their union. Also consider that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than other pair bondings.
Also consider that if the govt can legislate for homosexual marriage what else can they do. Legalise marriage to your pet goat, a housebrick?
Also, you don't seem to understand the requirement for consent in marriage do you?
And btw, just because the majority did not have slave did not mean the majority was not pro-slavery. I understand that if you are not from our country, you might not have a full breath of education in regards to our civil war but then you might not want to tell an American that their understand is incorrect. Unless of course you have studied this academically and have citations to support your hypothesis that the civil war was not about slavery other than the absurd idea that because someone could not afford a slave means that they were not pro-slavery.
Is it true that most people in the south did not have slaves? Yes.
What perceentage didn't have slaves? 75% to 80% Does anybody know this.
Were tarriffs enacted after the 1860 election that affected southerners more than notherners. Yes.
Did some union states still have slavery. Yes.
Were the majority of non slave owners subsistance farmers. Yes.
Its a hard life being a subsistance farmer and whilst they would have looked down upon the blacks due to human ingroup preference, the subsistance farmers would also not give a flying fuck about the gentry who owned all the slaves.
Given that only about 12% of the Confederate Army were conscripted the rest were willing volunteers. If you are a subsistence farmer who is never going to be able to afford slaves why bother to join up and fight over something that is never going to affect you.
Southerners without slaves would only benefit from slavery by being able to buy cheaper cotton goods. Northerners would also benefit from cheaper cotton goods because of interstate trade. the slave owners benefitted from slavery but most people in the south did not own slaves.
I'm not saying that slavery was not a major factor.
However, the evidence does clearly indicate it is more complex than just about slavery.
If this is wrong explain why.
Homosexuals didn't have children so no point the wider society celebtationg their union. Also consider that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than other pair bondings.
^^^ And on the subject of "wild ass guesses" masquerading as "research by experts," I came across this gem by the Heritage Foundation today:
http://samuel-warde.com/2015/04/heritage-foundation-same-sex-marriage-will-900000/
Apparently, same-sex marriage will result in 900,000 abortions.
Let that one sink in for a bit.
I particularly love that their "researchers" were able to come up with such a precise estimate.
SMDH.
^^^ And on the subject of "wild ass guesses" masquerading as "research by experts," I came across this gem by the Heritage Foundation today:
http://samuel-warde.com/2015/04/heritage-foundation-same-sex-marriage-will-900000/
Apparently, same-sex marriage will result in 900,000 abortions.
Let that one sink in for a bit.
I particularly love that their "researchers" were able to come up with such a precise estimate.
SMDH.
^^^ And on the subject of "wild ass guesses" masquerading as "research by experts," I came across this gem by the Heritage Foundation today:
http://samuel-warde.com/2015/04/heritage-foundation-same-sex-marriage-will-900000/
Apparently, same-sex marriage will result in 900,000 abortions.
Let that one sink in for a bit.
I particularly love that their "researchers" were able to come up with such a precise estimate.
SMDH.
Some conservatives are talking about banning the issuance of marriage licenses altogether. When they said that allowing gays to marry would "destroy the Institution of Marriage" (always capitalized for some reason), I had no idea that they meant that *they* would destroy it themselves out of spite.
http://www.newsweek.com/following-supreme-court-decision-mississippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740
Some conservatives are talking about banning the issuance of marriage licenses altogether. When they said that allowing gays to marry would "destroy the Institution of Marriage" (always capitalized for some reason), I had no idea that they meant that *they* would destroy it themselves out of spite.
http://www.newsweek.com/following-supreme-court-decision-mississippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740
Looks like at least a handful of officials in at least 5 states have stopped issuing licenses.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33352734
From the article, it's Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana refusing to obey the law (and thumbing their nose at the constitution). The South. Of course. These people are an albatross around our neck. We should just let them secede already. The rest of us would be better off.http://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Without-Manifesto-Secession/dp/145161666X (http://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Without-Manifesto-Secession/dp/145161666X)
From the article, it's Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana refusing to obey the law (and thumbing their nose at the constitution). The South. Of course. These people are an albatross around our neck. We should just let them secede already. The rest of us would be better off.
I think it should be really hard. Just think how costly that would be now. Using the Texas example, all those citizens would now be stripped of their citizenship, their SS, their Medicare, etc. We'd have to spend money building a border around the state and monitoring it. Texas itself would be decimated by the huge stream of people moving out before the change happened. The rest of the US would be overrun by ten million people suddenly looking for new homes. The military installations and other federal facilities would be lost. The ports we've built there would have to be replicated in Mississippi. We'd have to start monitoring the gas and oil that comes through the pipelines crossing the border and assessing import duties. I'm kind of assuming Texas would still be friendly (like Canada), and we wouldn't need to build up military installations all along the border. But if they were willing to secede, maybe things would have gotten really ugly.
The economies of both countries would suffer due to new difficulties on trade, tourism, etc.
I'm probably not scratching the surface of the costs here.
I take back all the nice things I said about Catholics earlier:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-coffin/bigots-tear-up-in-antigay_b_7707708.html
I think we'd be worse off splitting up. But it's hard to make a data-based case for this belief.
Yes, the south is a tax on the rest of the states. They are always paying in much less in tax than they receive in federal spending. And yes they pursue economically suboptimal policies that cause their economies to continually lag the other states. And yes their votes help shift the Congress (the Senate in particular) and presidential elections towards backwards policies.
But I think Lincoln was right that we're better together. And things in the south have improved a lot. Maybe dragging their heels kicking and screaming and over many generations. But still improving.
It would also be costly in many ways to split up:I think it should be really hard. Just think how costly that would be now. Using the Texas example, all those citizens would now be stripped of their citizenship, their SS, their Medicare, etc. We'd have to spend money building a border around the state and monitoring it. Texas itself would be decimated by the huge stream of people moving out before the change happened. The rest of the US would be overrun by ten million people suddenly looking for new homes. The military installations and other federal facilities would be lost. The ports we've built there would have to be replicated in Mississippi. We'd have to start monitoring the gas and oil that comes through the pipelines crossing the border and assessing import duties. I'm kind of assuming Texas would still be friendly (like Canada), and we wouldn't need to build up military installations all along the border. But if they were willing to secede, maybe things would have gotten really ugly.
The economies of both countries would suffer due to new difficulties on trade, tourism, etc.
I'm probably not scratching the surface of the costs here.
However, I am somewhat perturbed that it is written by a professor of sociology instead of a professor of history who would actually be informed about their specialist subject and can be expected to know more than a layman. After all, this is a rather important part of american history.
Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?
I don't have any primary sources for you on this (and I think it would be pretty hard to find primary sources to "prove" an attitude), but is it really so hard to figure out why?
Imagine that you are a poor white southerner. Maybe you're a sharecropper. You have very little -- almost nothing, in fact. You certainly could never own a slave, and you certainly aren't benefiting, directly or indirectly, from slavery. Your existence is really hard. But you know what? You are at least white. You're better than a common slave. And some people think that (I'm not going to use the derogatory word here, but you know what it is) "they" shouldn't be slaves any more. That "they" deserve the same rights as you, a good, God-fearing white person. That's against the natural order of things! It's in the Bible, after all! By God, if we let them free, pretty soon they'd be (and here, we could insert Dylann Roof's diatribe), taking our jobs, raping our women... That will never happen as long as I'm alive!
...
This is a good arguement.
However, consider this. 88% of southern troops volunteered. Would they have really left their farms to ruin and faced the prospect of a rather nasty death just to look down on the slaves. The plantation owners were only about 5% of the population and the white sharecroppers weren't going to join up just so the elite could keep all their wealth and privilage. So use propaganda about states rights and taxes/tariffs etc. And all good propaganda that works is at least moderately based on the truth which is why states rights/ tariffs were also a factor and it wasn't just about slavery.
As an aside, I don't see why you need to self censor yourself about using the word "nigger". If its good enough for your president to use then surely its also good enough for you. Doesn't your constitution mention something about all being equal?
As a further aside, I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't mention that blacks should be slaves. But does say that having sex slaves is OK.QuoteIs it really that hard to understand why someone who is not at all benefiting from a system, and arguably being hurt by it, could be convinced that it's exactly otherwise? And with that, we're right back where we started with the "Christian" opposition to gay marriage in this country. It affects them not one iota. But it offends their sensibilities, "cheapens" "traditional" marriage, and it's "against God's word." Very similar arguments for very different situations.
Coming back to same sex marriage, unfortunately it can and will affect them.
There is a clear difference between the govt treating everybody the same and the govt forcing ordinary people to do likewise. Churches might not have to marry homosexuals because of your first amendment but ordinary people engaged in the wedding business such as photographers and bakers will be forced to pander to homosexual demands.
It would be far better for the govt to remove itself entirely from human monogamous pair bonding. And if homosexuals want to get married in church they can set up their own religion, it must be easy enough, L. Ron Hubbard did it.
As an analogy, consider this. The former American athlete Bruce Jenner is taking hormone theraphy, has chaged his first name and wears dresses. Fair enough if thats what he wants to do, fuck all to do with me, no skin off my nose etc. However, so long as Mr Jenner has a penis and a y chromosome I shall refer to him as Mr Jenner and the law should not demand otherwise.
Is it really that hard to understand why someone who is not at all benefiting from a system, and arguably being hurt by it, could be convinced that it's exactly otherwise? And with that, we're right back where we started with the "Christian" opposition to gay marriage in this country. It affects them not one iota. But it offends their sensibilities, "cheapens" "traditional" marriage, and it's "against God's word." Very similar arguments for very different situations.
Coming back to same sex marriage, unfortunately it can and will affect them.
There is a clear difference between the govt treating everybody the same and the govt forcing ordinary people to do likewise. Churches might not have to marry homosexuals because of your first amendment but ordinary people engaged in the wedding business such as photographers and bakers will be forced to pander to homosexual demands.
It would be far better for the govt to remove itself entirely from human monogamous pair bonding. And if homosexuals want to get married in church they can set up their own religion, it must be easy enough, L. Ron Hubbard did it.
As an analogy, consider this. The former American athlete Bruce Jenner is taking hormone theraphy, has chaged his first name and wears dresses. Fair enough if thats what he wants to do, fuck all to do with me, no skin off my nose etc. However, so long as Mr Jenner has a penis and a y chromosome I shall refer to him as Mr Jenner and the law should not demand otherwise.
You say it affects them but don't say how. How is a wedding photographer affected by the SCOTUS decision? The definition of marriage doesn't force people to provide services to homosexual couples.
You say it affects them but don't say how. How is a wedding photographer affected by the SCOTUS decision? The definition of marriage doesn't force people to provide services to homosexual couples.
Equal protection under the law says you can't discriminate against them, essentially saying yes, you must provide services to them.
Oregon, for example, two days ago fined a bakery $135k for refusing to make a cake for a homosexual couple.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Final-order-Oregon-Bureau-of-Labor-and-Industries-BOLI-Gresham-Sweet-Cakes-Melissa-bakery-must-pay-135000-to-lesbian-couple-311494301.html
That's a good thing, IMO. Discrimination based on sexual orientation ought to be illegal.
But your question was asking how people are affected, and that they aren't forced to provide services to homosexual couples. They are if they want to provide services to anyone.
You say it affects them but don't say how. How is a wedding photographer affected by the SCOTUS decision? The definition of marriage doesn't force people to provide services to homosexual couples.
Equal protection under the law says you can't discriminate against them, essentially saying yes, you must provide services to them.
Oregon, for example, two days ago fined a bakery $135k for refusing to make a cake for a homosexual couple.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Final-order-Oregon-Bureau-of-Labor-and-Industries-BOLI-Gresham-Sweet-Cakes-Melissa-bakery-must-pay-135000-to-lesbian-couple-311494301.html
That's a good thing, IMO. Discrimination based on sexual orientation ought to be illegal.
But your question was asking how people are affected, and that they aren't forced to provide services to homosexual couples. They are if they want to provide services to anyone.
However, I am somewhat perturbed that it is written by a professor of sociology instead of a professor of history who would actually be informed about their specialist subject and can be expected to know more than a layman. After all, this is a rather important part of american history.
Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?
I don't have any primary sources for you on this (and I think it would be pretty hard to find primary sources to "prove" an attitude), but is it really so hard to figure out why?
Imagine that you are a poor white southerner. Maybe you're a sharecropper. You have very little -- almost nothing, in fact. You certainly could never own a slave, and you certainly aren't benefiting, directly or indirectly, from slavery. Your existence is really hard. But you know what? You are at least white. You're better than a common slave. And some people think that (I'm not going to use the derogatory word here, but you know what it is) "they" shouldn't be slaves any more. That "they" deserve the same rights as you, a good, God-fearing white person. That's against the natural order of things! It's in the Bible, after all! By God, if we let them free, pretty soon they'd be (and here, we could insert Dylann Roof's diatribe), taking our jobs, raping our women... That will never happen as long as I'm alive!
...
This is a good arguement.
However, consider this. 88% of southern troops volunteered. Would they have really left their farms to ruin and faced the prospect of a rather nasty death just to look down on the slaves. The plantation owners were only about 5% of the population and the white sharecroppers weren't going to join up just so the elite could keep all their wealth and privilage. So use propaganda about states rights and taxes/tariffs etc. And all good propaganda that works is at least moderately based on the truth which is why states rights/ tariffs were also a factor and it wasn't just about slavery.
As an aside, I don't see why you need to self censor yourself about using the word "nigger". If its good enough for your president to use then surely its also good enough for you. Doesn't your constitution mention something about all being equal?
As a further aside, I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't mention that blacks should be slaves. But does say that having sex slaves is OK.QuoteIs it really that hard to understand why someone who is not at all benefiting from a system, and arguably being hurt by it, could be convinced that it's exactly otherwise? And with that, we're right back where we started with the "Christian" opposition to gay marriage in this country. It affects them not one iota. But it offends their sensibilities, "cheapens" "traditional" marriage, and it's "against God's word." Very similar arguments for very different situations.
Coming back to same sex marriage, unfortunately it can and will affect them.
There is a clear difference between the govt treating everybody the same and the govt forcing ordinary people to do likewise. Churches might not have to marry homosexuals because of your first amendment but ordinary people engaged in the wedding business such as photographers and bakers will be forced to pander to homosexual demands.
It would be far better for the govt to remove itself entirely from human monogamous pair bonding. And if homosexuals want to get married in church they can set up their own religion, it must be easy enough, L. Ron Hubbard did it.
As an analogy, consider this. The former American athlete Bruce Jenner is taking hormone theraphy, has chaged his first name and wears dresses. Fair enough if thats what he wants to do, fuck all to do with me, no skin off my nose etc. However, so long as Mr Jenner has a penis and a y chromosome I shall refer to him as Mr Jenner and the law should not demand otherwise.
Troll.
Speaking of hateful:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/
Now I'm just ranting and (for the most part) preaching to the choir, but it really bothers me when somebody counters that with well why didn't the homosexual couple just ask somebody else to make the cake? Why would you want to buy services from someone who doesn't want to serve you?
That's not the point. If there was literally only one baker that did this, then maybe that proposed solution isn't so bad (though I still don't like it). But if you allow one baker to do that then you allow all bakers to do that. Obviously not all bakers will refuse service to homosexuals. But it allows for a discriminatory environment where homosexuals may not get the service they want because those who provide the desired service do not serve homosexuals. And now you have a serious problem.
Speaking of hateful:davisgang90 can comment on intent, but I read "speaking of hateful" as applied to the Oregon official who (perhaps) is attempting to limit the bakery owners' free speech rights about their court case. It isn't clear from the various quotes whether the issue is about discriminatory statements themselves (that seem properly subject to a "cease and desist" order), or about statements that the bakery owners intend to appeal the ruling through legal channels (which they should have every right to do and talk about).
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/
In order to reach the total amount, $135,000, Rachel and Laurel submitted a long list of alleged physical, emotional and mental damages they claim to have experienced as a result of the Kleins’ unlawful conduct.Again, there seems no doubt that Oregon law (http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403) prohibited the bakery from refusing service, and whatever criminal penalty applies is defensible, but that list seems, shall we say, somewhere between an overreach and complainypants....
Examples of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”
396 posts and only 6796 views.
I guess we have moved on to the next contentious subject and we can all go home now.
Not all jurisdictions in the US include sexual orientation as a ground in these laws.
Not all jurisdictions in the US include sexual orientation as a ground in these laws.
I think this is one part of this issue that a lot of people are missing. If your jurisdiction (might be city, state, etc.) has a law on the books outlawing discrimination by businesses against customers, it will explicitly list all of the bases for discrimination that the law covers. The list is getting longer as time goes on: it typically includes race, religion, etc, but not always sexual orientation as Cathy states.
That means that if, say, I'm in Seattle and I have a taco truck, if Dick Cheney walks up and orders a taco, I can say, "fuck you Dick Cheney, buy a taco somewhere else," and that's not discrimination because neither Seattle nor Washington State nor the U.S. has a law on the books that outlaws discrimination against assholes. Even if Dick Cheney were gay, if my discrimination isn't based on that, it's lawful.
That's my understanding, anyway. I'm sure Cathy will correct me if I've misstated anything. :)
That means that if, say, I'm in Seattle and I have a taco truck, if Dick Cheney walks up and orders a taco, I can say, "fuck you Dick Cheney, buy a taco somewhere else," and that's not discrimination because neither Seattle nor Washington State nor the U.S. has a law on the books that outlaws discrimination against assholes. Even if Dick Cheney were gay, if my discrimination isn't based on that, it's lawful.Can confirm: Any random Seattleite aspires both to own a taco truck and to tell Dick Cheney to go fuck off. Very realistic scenario.
That means that if, say, I'm in Seattle and I have a taco truck, if Dick Cheney walks up and orders a taco, I can say, "fuck you Dick Cheney, buy a taco somewhere else," and that's not discrimination because neither Seattle nor Washington State nor the U.S. has a law on the books that outlaws discrimination against assholes. Even if Dick Cheney were gay, if my discrimination isn't based on that, it's lawful.Can confirm: Any random Seattleite aspires both to own a taco truck and to tell Dick Cheney to go fuck off. Very realistic scenario.
the Christians who protest gay marriage are wrong.
Thank you for that voice of reason, we all appreciate it.Christians opposed to gay marriage should instead use their energy to protest against the homosexual act.
Wait... what? You can be gay and you can get married, but the the moment you make love it's wrong? Christians have no right whatsoever to "protest" what other non-believers do in the privacy of their own home at all. Your line of reasoning seems like you're trying to reconcile what the supreme court has ruled, but still hold onto intolerance with both hands.
If your jurisdiction (might be city, state, etc.) has a law on the books outlawing discrimination by businesses against customers, it will explicitly list all of the bases for discrimination that the law covers.
396 posts and only 6796 views.
I guess we have moved on to the next contentious subject and we can all go home now.
I don't know how the view tally works. Does it count each unique person only once? Or each time they view separately?
the Christians who protest gay marriage are wrong.
Thank you for that voice of reason, we all appreciate it.Christians opposed to gay marriage should instead use their energy to protest against the homosexual act.
Wait... what? You can be gay and you can get married, but the the moment you make love it's wrong? Christians have no right whatsoever to "protest" what other non-believers do in the privacy of their own home at all. Your line of reasoning seems like you're trying to reconcile what the supreme court has ruled, but still hold onto intolerance with both hands.
So, I go to a conservative Christian church, in large part because I've been there for 15 years and am loathe to move after so long. But my views regarding homosexuality did a 180 about a decade ago, yet I'm pretty sure my husband and I are probably the only people in the congregation who have no problem with same sex marriage. This is one of the many ways we are out of step with the rest of the flock.
If your jurisdiction (might be city, state, etc.) has a law on the books outlawing discrimination by businesses against customers, it will explicitly list all of the bases for discrimination that the law covers.
Some jurisdictions have open-ended anti-discrimination statutes that aren't limited to a set of listed grounds. For example, California Civil Code § 51 prohibits discrimination by businesses in general, and also contains a list of example grounds, but it's not limited to discrimination on those grounds.
the Christians who protest gay marriage are wrong.
Thank you for that voice of reason, we all appreciate it.Christians opposed to gay marriage should instead use their energy to protest against the homosexual act.
Wait... what? You can be gay and you can get married, but the the moment you make love it's wrong? Christians have no right whatsoever to "protest" what other non-believers do in the privacy of their own home at all. Your line of reasoning seems like you're trying to reconcile what the supreme court has ruled, but still hold onto intolerance with both hands.
So, I go to a conservative Christian church, in large part because I've been there for 15 years and am loathe to move after so long. But my views regarding homosexuality did a 180 about a decade ago, yet I'm pretty sure my husband and I are probably the only people in the congregation who have no problem with same sex marriage. This is one of the many ways we are out of step with the rest of the flock.
I would bet there's a lot more than you think, and they're also thinking they're the only ones, so no one says anything.
It's really common among groups, actually.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance
I think millenials and younger Christians struggle with the older congregation's focus on social issues.
By 2050 or so, I expect that Evangelicals will play a social role somewhat similar to the one white supremacists played in the 1980s and 90s; widely reviled by society at large, but still going strong in certain pockets of the country. Their death throws will be equally as unpleasant.
I think millenials and younger Christians struggle with the older congregation's focus on social issues.
I suspect that conservative religious groups will only change after conservative political groups have already done so.
Political parties are creatures of expedience. They need votes to stay in power. The Republican party currently gains more votes than it loses by taking a strong stand in favor of bigotry, but I know a ton of fiscally conservative young voters who would much prefer to vote Republican but have a strong distaste for all of the anti-gay, anti-women, anti-immigration type policy planks.
There will come a day when the Republican party leadership realizes that they will win over more fiscally conservative young voters than they will alienate old evangelical voters if they join the 21st century on social issues. It may not be this cycle or even this decade, but it will happen eventually. The party will have to adapt, or else risk riding their aged demographic right into the grave.
But the conservative religious groups, the Baptists and the Mormons and such, are IMO more resistant to this kind of change. I think they'll be the last stalwarts of hatred and bigotry by the time my lifespan wraps up. By 2050 or so, I expect that Evangelicals will play a social role somewhat similar to the one white supremacists played in the 1980s and 90s; widely reviled by society at large, but still going strong in certain pockets of the country. Their death throws will be equally as unpleasant.
Consider how long it took between Brown vs Board of Education (1954), a SCOTUS decision analogous to the recent gay marriage ruling, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1968) as a reflection of more widespread public support for equality between human beings. Just because gay marriage is legal in every US state today doesn't mean discrimination against homosexuals, and the regressive attitudes that support it, are going to disappear overnight.
I debate with religious people over these things all of the time. The best answer IMHO is to separate church and state. Let the church do whatever they want with marriage, but don't allow any legal rights attached to that said marriage. Define how the legal aspects of two people uniting will work and have that be how anything related to legal matters is addressed. There are many other areas where this separation should be made. Another constant example is voting. I absolutely hate that in all but one time in my entire voting life has it been in a church. I think this is very wrong.There is NOTHING in this ruling that says practitioners of any religion must marry same-sex couples. Churches are free to continue doing as they wish.
This says that marriage is a constitutional right, and that a STATE must recognize marriage between same sex couples.
To the extent that church officials are blessed with the power of the state to give legal effect to marriages, allowing them to opt out of ratifying marriages on the basis of the gender of the participants does potentially raise constitutional concerns, although not ones discussed in the decision. I won't say those issues have a clear resolution in US constitutional law, but the arguments aren't frivolous.
The next marriage-related frontier will likely be an onslaught of state laws that purport to authorise marriage officials to decline, at their option, to grant a marriage licence on the basis of personal beliefs. Those laws are typically passed under the rubric of promoting freedom of religion, but they can have the effect of making it logistically difficult to find an official to ratify a marriage in less-progressive regions. In Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under The Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3 (https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/2011/2011skca3/2011skca3.html), the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan considered legislation that authorised marriage officials to implement their personal religious beliefs by, at their option, refusing to perform same-sex marriages. The Court found that such legislation is contrary to the constitution of Canada. I expect that this issue will be litigated in the US in due course.
I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym. I don't see the problem with renting any of this space. Can you explain what your issue is?I debate with religious people over these things all of the time. The best answer IMHO is to separate church and state. Let the church do whatever they want with marriage, but don't allow any legal rights attached to that said marriage. Define how the legal aspects of two people uniting will work and have that be how anything related to legal matters is addressed. There are many other areas where this separation should be made. Another constant example is voting. I absolutely hate that in all but one time in my entire voting life has it been in a church. I think this is very wrong.There is NOTHING in this ruling that says practitioners of any religion must marry same-sex couples. Churches are free to continue doing as they wish.
This says that marriage is a constitutional right, and that a STATE must recognize marriage between same sex couples.
To the extent that church officials are blessed with the power of the state to give legal effect to marriages, allowing them to opt out of ratifying marriages on the basis of the gender of the participants does potentially raise constitutional concerns, although not ones discussed in the decision. I won't say those issues have a clear resolution in US constitutional law, but the arguments aren't frivolous.
The next marriage-related frontier will likely be an onslaught of state laws that purport to authorise marriage officials to decline, at their option, to grant a marriage licence on the basis of personal beliefs. Those laws are typically passed under the rubric of promoting freedom of religion, but they can have the effect of making it logistically difficult to find an official to ratify a marriage in less-progressive regions. In Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under The Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3 (https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/2011/2011skca3/2011skca3.html), the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan considered legislation that authorised marriage officials to implement their personal religious beliefs by, at their option, refusing to perform same-sex marriages. The Court found that such legislation is contrary to the constitution of Canada. I expect that this issue will be litigated in the US in due course.
I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym. I don't see the problem with renting any of this space. Can you explain what your issue is?
I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym. I don't see the problem with renting any of this space. Can you explain what your issue is?
Potential subconscious influences?
Are people really making voting decision AT the polls? Aren't you suppose to figure how you are voting before you go?I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym. I don't see the problem with renting any of this space. Can you explain what your issue is?
Potential subconscious influences?
Are people really making voting decision AT the polls? Aren't you suppose to figure how you are voting before you go?I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym. I don't see the problem with renting any of this space. Can you explain what your issue is?
Potential subconscious influences?
Are people really making voting decision AT the polls? Aren't you suppose to figure how you are voting before you go?I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym. I don't see the problem with renting any of this space. Can you explain what your issue is?
Potential subconscious influences?
Absolutely, in theory. But don't underestimate psychology. I could see people changing last minute based on guilt, or something they don't even realize, or whatever.
I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.
I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.
I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.
I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.
I agree with you. I know there are practical reasons why they use places of worship, so I've never made a stink about it, just don't like it, you know? And I think it could be much harder for people who feel like they've been persecuted by a particular religious group, and now they have to step into that place of worship. But not high on my list of Things to Try to Change About the US.
I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.
I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.
I agree with you. I know there are practical reasons why they use places of worship, so I've never made a stink about it, just don't like it, you know? And I think it could be much harder for people who feel like they've been persecuted by a particular religious group, and now they have to step into that place of worship. But not high on my list of Things to Try to Change About the US.
I can certainly understand that, especially if, like you say, if the church had offended someone in the past. Can't anyone vote a week earlier absentee now if they want? That could be a solution, albeit one that would necessitate planning.
My state won't let me vote absentee without a valid reason (NY). It pisses me off because I pretty much voted absentee for years in Ca.I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.
I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.
I agree with you. I know there are practical reasons why they use places of worship, so I've never made a stink about it, just don't like it, you know? And I think it could be much harder for people who feel like they've been persecuted by a particular religious group, and now they have to step into that place of worship. But not high on my list of Things to Try to Change About the US.
I can certainly understand that, especially if, like you say, if the church had offended someone in the past. Can't anyone vote a week earlier absentee now if they want? That could be a solution, albeit one that would necessitate planning.
I do believe that anyone can vote absentee ballot now, so yes, that is a solution and probably the best one. Although (and I'm totally surmising here), if I felt persecuted, I wouldn't want to have to vote absentee (I realize it's a choice, but neither one feels very good to me). It's as if everyone else gets to come together as a community to vote, but in order to feel comfortable voting, I have to remove myself from that and be marginalized, in a sense. My preference would be for people within a community to be able to select another voting place if they're not comfortable with their designated one, but that adds complications we don't need, so I just shrug it off.
But to arebelspy's point about the psychology behind things, while I don't think it has changed my vote, it might dissuade me from voting at all (unconsciously) if I weren't particularly comfortable in the voting place--it's just an extra barrier to entry.
I would bet there's a lot more than you think, and they're also thinking they're the only ones, so no one says anything.
It's really common among groups, actually.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance
I'm not a religious person, but always seem to have to vote at a church. Luckily now there is absentee ballots so I have a choice, but in the past I did not. I don't believe I should be forced to go to a church if I want to cast my vote.I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym. I don't see the problem with renting any of this space. Can you explain what your issue is?I debate with religious people over these things all of the time. The best answer IMHO is to separate church and state. Let the church do whatever they want with marriage, but don't allow any legal rights attached to that said marriage. Define how the legal aspects of two people uniting will work and have that be how anything related to legal matters is addressed. There are many other areas where this separation should be made. Another constant example is voting. I absolutely hate that in all but one time in my entire voting life has it been in a church. I think this is very wrong.There is NOTHING in this ruling that says practitioners of any religion must marry same-sex couples. Churches are free to continue doing as they wish.
This says that marriage is a constitutional right, and that a STATE must recognize marriage between same sex couples.
To the extent that church officials are blessed with the power of the state to give legal effect to marriages, allowing them to opt out of ratifying marriages on the basis of the gender of the participants does potentially raise constitutional concerns, although not ones discussed in the decision. I won't say those issues have a clear resolution in US constitutional law, but the arguments aren't frivolous.
The next marriage-related frontier will likely be an onslaught of state laws that purport to authorise marriage officials to decline, at their option, to grant a marriage licence on the basis of personal beliefs. Those laws are typically passed under the rubric of promoting freedom of religion, but they can have the effect of making it logistically difficult to find an official to ratify a marriage in less-progressive regions. In Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under The Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3 (https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/2011/2011skca3/2011skca3.html), the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan considered legislation that authorised marriage officials to implement their personal religious beliefs by, at their option, refusing to perform same-sex marriages. The Court found that such legislation is contrary to the constitution of Canada. I expect that this issue will be litigated in the US in due course.
Thank you Gray Matter! I agree with this 100%Are people really making voting decision AT the polls? Aren't you suppose to figure how you are voting before you go?I have voted in a union office, a church and a gym. I don't see the problem with renting any of this space. Can you explain what your issue is?
Potential subconscious influences?
Absolutely, in theory. But don't underestimate psychology. I could see people changing last minute based on guilt, or something they don't even realize, or whatever.
I don't think I've ever been influenced by the building in which I voted (always followed through on who I intended to vote for), but I don't like that I have to go into a place of worship to vote--that doesn't seem very "separation of church and state" to me. I'm uncomfortable in houses of worship--find them slightly creepy to be honest--and don't feel like I should have to set foot in one to do my civic duty.
I'd prefer to vote only in public buildings--schools, libraries, county or city rec centers, etc.--but that's not my polling place. I supposed I could vote by absentee ballot, but I like to rub elbows with my neighbors at the polls.
Yes Gray Matter EXACTLY why I personally don't like it. I live in CA where a majority of churches were against Prop 8. I'm sure everyone here is aware of this proposition due to all of the attention and the last SCOTUS ruling over it, so I won't go into it. So to then have to go to a church and vote on the issue IMO is wrong.I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.
I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.
I agree with you. I know there are practical reasons why they use places of worship, so I've never made a stink about it, just don't like it, you know? And I think it could be much harder for people who feel like they've been persecuted by a particular religious group, and now they have to step into that place of worship. But not high on my list of Things to Try to Change About the US.
I'm pretty sure the south would try to secede again of we made them all vote in mosques, surrounded by Muslim iconography.Sol, the more I read your posts on this the more I like you and think I might actually be an atheist. I've always thought I might be, but thought maybe more agnostic. I never really looked into it, but I may now. Thanks for some awesome information!
Our worse yet, a satanic temple.
Our worst yet, a secular building like a fire station. "Those damn atheists, always trying to push their views on everyone else."
I'm pretty sure the south would try to secede again of we made them all vote in mosques, surrounded by Muslim iconography.
Our worse yet, a satanic temple.
Our worst yet, a secular building like a fire station. "Those damn atheists, always trying to push their views on everyone else."
I'm pretty sure the south would try to secede again of we made them all vote in mosques, surrounded by Muslim iconography.
Our worse yet, a satanic temple.
Our worst yet, a secular building like a fire station. "Those damn atheists, always trying to push their views on everyone else."
If the atheists would like to pay for and maintain a polling place as convenient as a church, I'll be happy to vote there.
I'm pretty sure the south would try to secede again of we made them all vote in mosques, surrounded by Muslim iconography.
Our worse yet, a satanic temple.
Our worst yet, a secular building like a fire station. "Those damn atheists, always trying to push their views on everyone else."
If the atheists would like to pay for and maintain a polling place as convenient as a church, I'll be happy to vote there.
I've never voted in a church.
And the concept is really weird to me.
Sol's post makes a great point--I'd bet Christians would be offended to have to go into another place of worship to vote, why should theirs be different?
I've voted in multiple libraries and elementary school gymnasiums, and even in a mall. Those seem perfectly adequate to me, and (to your funding point, though I'm not really sure what the point is), they are funded by the taxpayers (besides the mall, which was obviously voluntary on their part). How is a church more convenient than a library or school? (Or any other public building.)
I'm pretty sure the south would try to secede again of we made them all vote in mosques, surrounded by Muslim iconography.
Our worse yet, a satanic temple.
Our worst yet, a secular building like a fire station. "Those damn atheists, always trying to push their views on everyone else."
If the atheists would like to pay for and maintain a polling place as convenient as a church, I'll be happy to vote there.
I've never voted in a church.
And the concept is really weird to me.
Sol's post makes a great point--I'd bet Christians would be offended to have to go into another place of worship to vote, why should theirs be different?
I've voted in multiple libraries and elementary school gymnasiums, and even in a mall. Those seem perfectly adequate to me, and (to your funding point, though I'm not really sure what the point is), they are funded by the taxpayers (besides the mall, which was obviously voluntary on their part). How is a church more convenient than a library or school? (Or any other public building.)
I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.
I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.
But I think we do have to take into account the privilege of being a majority religion. Would those in that religion be comfortable in another place of worship? I know that for OJs, it is against their religion to enter another's place of worship. How is that not, in effect, discrimination?I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.
I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.
I suspect justajane has given the most common scenario. There might be a handful of counterexamples among the thousands of polling places, but it's unlikely that voting occurs in "sanctified" worship spaces.
If we are to move to a more inclusive society, people may need to deal with their own versions of "I'm uncomfortable [with] __________ --find them slightly creepy to be honest-- and don't feel like I should have to [have anything to do with them] to do my civic duty."
It's easy to agree with that statement when it matches one's own "uncomfort zone," but not so easy when one disagrees. E.g., substitute "religious people" or "gay people" in the blank. In either case, I respectfully suggest the uncomfortable ones build a bridge and get over it.
think I might actually be an atheist. I've always thought I might be, but thought maybe more agnostic. I never really looked into it, but I may now.
I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.
I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.
I suspect justajane has given the most common scenario. There might be a handful of counterexamples among the thousands of polling places, but it's unlikely that voting occurs in "sanctified" worship spaces.
If we are to move to a more inclusive society, people may need to deal with their own versions of "I'm uncomfortable [with] __________ --find them slightly creepy to be honest-- and don't feel like I should have to [have anything to do with them] to do my civic duty."
It's easy to agree with that statement when it matches one's own "uncomfort zone," but not so easy when one disagrees. E.g., substitute "religious people" or "gay people" in the blank. In either case, I respectfully suggest the uncomfortable ones build a bridge and get over it.
Hey now, let's be reasonable, we vote in November. Wiccan sacred spaces are often OUTSIDE. Are you crazy? No voting in Wiccan space, no, no, no. I need that backing up octopus right now.I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.
I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.
I suspect justajane has given the most common scenario. There might be a handful of counterexamples among the thousands of polling places, but it's unlikely that voting occurs in "sanctified" worship spaces.
If we are to move to a more inclusive society, people may need to deal with their own versions of "I'm uncomfortable [with] __________ --find them slightly creepy to be honest-- and don't feel like I should have to [have anything to do with them] to do my civic duty."
It's easy to agree with that statement when it matches one's own "uncomfort zone," but not so easy when one disagrees. E.g., substitute "religious people" or "gay people" in the blank. In either case, I respectfully suggest the uncomfortable ones build a bridge and get over it.
I think it's easy, when you're not the one uncomfortable, to tell others they need to get over it. "Oh, you're uncomfortable? Well, I'm not. So too bad, you need to get over it." I personally think I've gotten over it as much as I need to (I go to said place, despite my discomfort, to do my civic duty, and I don't say anything to the good citizens who are helping at the poll booth, and I've thought through the practical implications of what might be, in my opinion, a better solution and have decided it's probably not).
And I didn't say "religious people," I said "houses of worship," so it's not the equivalent of "gay people" (also, have never had a gay person try to convert me, but whatever). I stand by my right to feel uncomfortable in a building that is laden with pictures and statues of a dead guy with blood running down him and who many people have insisted on telling me died for my sins (oh no, he didn't!). And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state.
I would be interested in see what would happen if more people were asked to vote in mosques, or houses of devil worship, or Wiccan sacred space. I believe I have built the bridge I need to and I do not act on my uncomfortable feelings--I do my civic duty--but my feelings are my own to have if I want to.
And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state.
But I think we do have to take into account the privilege of being a majority religion. Would those in that religion be comfortable in another place of worship? I know that for OJs, it is against their religion to enter another's place of worship. How is that not, in effect, discrimination?
Hey now, let's be reasonable, we vote in November. Wiccan sacred spaces are often OUTSIDE. Are you crazy? No voting in Wiccan space, no, no, no. I need that backing up octopus right now.I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.
I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.
I suspect justajane has given the most common scenario. There might be a handful of counterexamples among the thousands of polling places, but it's unlikely that voting occurs in "sanctified" worship spaces.
If we are to move to a more inclusive society, people may need to deal with their own versions of "I'm uncomfortable [with] __________ --find them slightly creepy to be honest-- and don't feel like I should have to [have anything to do with them] to do my civic duty."
It's easy to agree with that statement when it matches one's own "uncomfort zone," but not so easy when one disagrees. E.g., substitute "religious people" or "gay people" in the blank. In either case, I respectfully suggest the uncomfortable ones build a bridge and get over it.
I think it's easy, when you're not the one uncomfortable, to tell others they need to get over it. "Oh, you're uncomfortable? Well, I'm not. So too bad, you need to get over it." I personally think I've gotten over it as much as I need to (I go to said place, despite my discomfort, to do my civic duty, and I don't say anything to the good citizens who are helping at the poll booth, and I've thought through the practical implications of what might be, in my opinion, a better solution and have decided it's probably not).
And I didn't say "religious people," I said "houses of worship," so it's not the equivalent of "gay people" (also, have never had a gay person try to convert me, but whatever). I stand by my right to feel uncomfortable in a building that is laden with pictures and statues of a dead guy with blood running down him and who many people have insisted on telling me died for my sins (oh no, he didn't!). And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state.
I would be interested in see what would happen if more people were asked to vote in mosques, or houses of devil worship, or Wiccan sacred space. I believe I have built the bridge I need to and I do not act on my uncomfortable feelings--I do my civic duty--but my feelings are my own to have if I want to.
And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state.
The church can't overstep the line of separation, it's up to the state to keep the church in check. The church is free to pursue as much influence as it can and the state is responsible for holding it back.
Why so few polling places in urban disadvantaged areas?
I think it's easy, when you're not the one uncomfortable, to tell others they need to get over it. "Oh, you're uncomfortable? Well, I'm not. So too bad, you need to get over it."
I think it's easy, when you're not the one uncomfortable, to tell others they need to get over it. "Oh, you're uncomfortable? Well, I'm not. So too bad, you need to get over it."
Agree completely. That was in fact the main point I was trying to make, with the follow-up that all should be cognizant of the potential for others' discomfort and be considerate. All the while helping them to build those bridges. E.g., you might help others understand perspective A, while others help you understand perspective B.
Lol, but winter is still cold in the south to the southerners.Hey now, let's be reasonable, we vote in November. Wiccan sacred spaces are often OUTSIDE. Are you crazy? No voting in Wiccan space, no, no, no. I need that backing up octopus right now.I think one reason they use churches instead of schools is because churches are by and large vacant on Tuesdays, whereas at schools you have to deal with having random voters in the same space as minors. There's safety and practical issues.
I vote in the basement of a church, and it doesn't even feel like a church. There's nothing there to indicate religion -- just a kitchen, an open space and a food pantry on the wall. I don't think the church gets any money for it. It's just a public service they provide. There just wouldn't be enough civil and public spaces if churches stopped allowing it or were banned from doing it.
I suspect justajane has given the most common scenario. There might be a handful of counterexamples among the thousands of polling places, but it's unlikely that voting occurs in "sanctified" worship spaces.
If we are to move to a more inclusive society, people may need to deal with their own versions of "I'm uncomfortable [with] __________ --find them slightly creepy to be honest-- and don't feel like I should have to [have anything to do with them] to do my civic duty."
It's easy to agree with that statement when it matches one's own "uncomfort zone," but not so easy when one disagrees. E.g., substitute "religious people" or "gay people" in the blank. In either case, I respectfully suggest the uncomfortable ones build a bridge and get over it.
I think it's easy, when you're not the one uncomfortable, to tell others they need to get over it. "Oh, you're uncomfortable? Well, I'm not. So too bad, you need to get over it." I personally think I've gotten over it as much as I need to (I go to said place, despite my discomfort, to do my civic duty, and I don't say anything to the good citizens who are helping at the poll booth, and I've thought through the practical implications of what might be, in my opinion, a better solution and have decided it's probably not).
And I didn't say "religious people," I said "houses of worship," so it's not the equivalent of "gay people" (also, have never had a gay person try to convert me, but whatever). I stand by my right to feel uncomfortable in a building that is laden with pictures and statues of a dead guy with blood running down him and who many people have insisted on telling me died for my sins (oh no, he didn't!). And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state.
I would be interested in see what would happen if more people were asked to vote in mosques, or houses of devil worship, or Wiccan sacred space. I believe I have built the bridge I need to and I do not act on my uncomfortable feelings--I do my civic duty--but my feelings are my own to have if I want to.
OK, so only Wiccan sacred space in the South, how about that? Northerners get a free pass. :-)
And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state.
The church can't overstep the line of separation, it's up to the state to keep the church in check. The church is free to pursue as much influence as it can and the state is responsible for holding it back.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state.
The church can't overstep the line of separation, it's up to the state to keep the church in check. The church is free to pursue as much influence as it can and the state is responsible for holding it back.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
You can disagree, but you'll be wrong. It's like saying my kid has too much influence over my decisionson their bedtime. It may be true, it may not be, but ultimately it's my responsibility to make the decision, not my kid's, so if I let my kid sway me that's 100% my fault.
And given that there has been at least one judge that said the government can't tell the church what to do, I'd hope the church would pretend to act like adults and respect the laws of the land.And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state.
The church can't overstep the line of separation, it's up to the state to keep the church in check. The church is free to pursue as much influence as it can and the state is responsible for holding it back.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
You can disagree, but you'll be wrong. It's like saying my kid has too much influence over my decisionson their bedtime. It may be true, it may not be, but ultimately it's my responsibility to make the decision, not my kid's, so if I let my kid sway me that's 100% my fault.
From a legal perspective, of course you are right--churches are under no obligation to respect separation of church and state, and are certainly free to pursue their own interests. However (and I know this makes me sound idealistic) from an ethical perspective, I think they have a responsibility to self-govern. I don't expect you, or others, to agree with me, thus the "agree to disagree" thing. I'm not much for "every man for himself" or "pursue your own interests until someone stops you" as an approach to life. That doesn't make me a very good capitalist, I know, but it is still my opinion about how organizations ought to comport themselves, and as such, I can't be "wrong" (though you can think I am).
Also, the government is made up of adults, as is the church (those governing it, anyway), so your analogy is not compelling to me. The relationship between churches and state is not that of parent/child, in my opinion.
Kim Davis is the county clerk from Kentucky who has decided to stop issuing marriage licenses because she believes God forbids gay people from getting married. She believes she has a constitutionally protected right to refuse to do her job.
Which is sort of true, I guess. If a firefighter decides that fighting fires is against his religion, no one is going to force him to pick up a hose. Probably not going to keep him on staff as a firefighter, either.
So the only question I have is this: why does Kim Davis still have a job?
So the only question I have is this: why does Kim Davis still have a job?
Yup, Kim Davis, another one of those stereotypical good ol' gal Democrats who...oh, wait...that doesn't fit the stereotype, does it?
Yup, Kim Davis, another one of those stereotypical good ol' gal Democrats who...oh, wait...that doesn't fit the stereotype, does it?
It actually does, especially in KY. Gay rights issues tended to be more divided along party lines, but that's generally due to the evangelical religious affiliations and regional relationships with party ID (as discussed at length in this thread). So I would expect an evangelical in the South to be more likely to behave this way regardless of party. And local officials are not as tightly tied to the mainstream of the party--I don't even have any idea who my county clerk is, let alone their views on same-sex marriage. But I do know for my governor, congressional representatives, etc.
Yup, Kim Davis, another one of those stereotypical good ol' gal Democrats who...oh, wait...that doesn't fit the stereotype, does it?
It actually does, especially in KY. Gay rights issues tended to be more divided along party lines, but that's generally due to the evangelical religious affiliations and regional relationships with party ID (as discussed at length in this thread). So I would expect an evangelical in the South to be more likely to behave this way regardless of party. And local officials are not as tightly tied to the mainstream of the party--I don't even have any idea who my county clerk is, let alone their views on same-sex marriage. But I do know for my governor, congressional representatives, etc.
So you're saying southern Democrats are expected to be against same sex marriage?
Or is it only that those people who are against same sex marriage are the ones against same sex marriage, thus we shouldn't try to stereotype any diverse group of people? I could agree with that.
Yup, Kim Davis, another one of those stereotypical good ol' gal Democrats who...oh, wait...that doesn't fit the stereotype, does it?
It actually does, especially in KY. Gay rights issues tended to be more divided along party lines, but that's generally due to the evangelical religious affiliations and regional relationships with party ID (as discussed at length in this thread). So I would expect an evangelical in the South to be more likely to behave this way regardless of party. And local officials are not as tightly tied to the mainstream of the party--I don't even have any idea who my county clerk is, let alone their views on same-sex marriage. But I do know for my governor, congressional representatives, etc.
So you're saying southern Democrats are expected to be against same sex marriage?
Or is it only that those people who are against same sex marriage are the ones against same sex marriage, thus we shouldn't try to stereotype any diverse group of people? I could agree with that.
I was providing nuanced discussion of the issue. Local officials are less likely to be lined up with their policy opinions to the national party. Regional differences in opinions on issues are also a factor. And religious affiliation is the most strong on this issue. Same-sex marriage was definitely somewhat more favorable amongst Democrats than Republicans, but it was never an 80/20 D and 20/80 R split like many issues are. Even Obama was theoretically against it (secretly in favor, publicly pretending to be not in favor) until a few years ago. So I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a southern evangelical Democrat was against same-sex marriage. That's all.
If your point is that stereotypes don't apply to 100% of people in the stereotyped demographic, no one will disagree with that.
If your point is that stereotypes don't apply to 100% of people in the stereotyped demographic, no one will disagree with that.