SCOTUS rules same sex marriage is constitutional right

[Sparafusile]

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.

[dycker1978]

"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.

You are right Sparafusile.  This is the issue.  Just because you have your head so far up your buried in the sand does not mean there are not travesties going on.  As I said in my earlier post, why is this an argument.  If you are human, you have human rights.  Done. 

Unless you prove that you cannot handle those rights, by breaking the societal laws, and becoming incarcerated. In my opinion this is the only class of people that deserve less rights, while in jail, because they proved they cant handle them.

[Tyson]

"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.

Right, my response was sarcasm.  Perhaps I should have indicated that more clearly.

[sol]

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.

[Midwest]

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.

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 Hoosiers Christians. I merely presented them as one instance where Hoosiers Christians were intolerant. One of many many many instances. Not even within the same state religion can Hoosiers Christians live 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).

[regulator]

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).

[Sparafusile]

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 Hoosiers Christians. I merely presented them as one instance where Hoosiers Christians were intolerant. One of many many many instances. Not even within the same state religion can Hoosiers Christians live 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).

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.

[GuitarStv]

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.

[regulator]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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?

[Tyson]

Being a bigot is like being a sociopath - you have every right to have bigoted or violent thoughts all you want.  But you do NOT have the right to act on those beliefs.  The moment you deny service (or attack someone) your right to your "beliefs" ends. 

[regulator]

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?

Listening is not always equal to agreeing.  Remember, I am not here for an echo chamber.  YMMV.

[Midwest]

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.

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.

[sol]

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.

[Midwest]

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.

I guess tolerance only extends to things you believe in.  You can have beliefs without forcing them on others. 

[sol]

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.

It did occur to me, which is why I'm still here.  Whenever I meet a person who seems otherwise rational, yet clings to irrational views, part of me feels compelled to explore.

In this case, I see a widespread disconnect in America in people who recognize that discriminating on race is wrong but still think discriminating on sexuality is okay.  Like they've somehow accepted that blacks are really people who deserve equal rights, but not gays or lesbians?  Why is a gay man less human than a black man?  What's the grounds for actively denying that person the rights everyone else has?

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?"

[sol]

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.

[regulator]

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?"

Ah, an optimist!  I am pretty sure that in a hundred years we will still be killing each other for being different.  If not, we will find another reason to kill each other.

[regulator]

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.

[Sparafusile]

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. Rather than try to explain why Christian are destroying Mosques in Africa, it was a common ground on which to frame a debate. If it causes an inflammatory response, it's simply indicative of the head-in-the-sand response that occurs any time a negative aspect of Christianity is brought up. I also never said that all Christians are bad. In fact, I said the opposite if you care to go back to the first page.

ISIS certainly does identify as Muslim. And saying that all Muslims are intolerant would be wrong as well. Fortunately, 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. If we use the supreme court as representative of the entire populate, nearly 45% of the people disagree with what occurred last week. 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%.

Since we know that history will show that allowing gays equal rights is the correct position to be on I don't know what better example to give on how out of touch Christianity as a group is. On the other hand, non-evangelical Protestants and Catholics had surprising high amounts of support for gay rights so perhaps there is hope for the religion after all. Still, I can't help but feel that had Christians not campaigned so hard against gay rights that there would have been no need for a supreme court decision in the first place.

[Midwest]

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.

And yet you are evangelizing.  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. 

[Sparafusile]

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.

[Tyson]

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.

[sol]

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.

For the record, I like and support most aspects of religion.  My kids go to church.  I like the social support structure, the sense of community, the charitable works, and most of the messaging.  I just don't like how they tie all of that together with ridiculously nonsensical fairy tales.  I've never understood why that part is still necessary in this day and age.

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.

Right on.

Reg, I totally recognize that my beliefs are far from universal.  I will even defend your right to espouse your beliefs door to door in my neighborhood.  Please consider extending me the same courtesy.

[regulator]

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.

Well, you are the mod, so you get whatever you like.  Enjoy.

[beltim]

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

[Tyson]

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.

[beltim]

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.

[Sparafusile]

... 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...

Not sure if you're trolling here or not, but I'll bite.

If I was gay, would you be mature and include me in the forum? Keeping in mind that there is a separation of church and state in the United States, according to whom is homosexuality a sin and should therefor be illegal?

[Tyson]

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.

That's fine, we can agree to disagree.

[Tyson]

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!

[johnny847]

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!

Careful tyort1. Apparently your use of sarcasm isn't obvious enough to some people!
*sigh*

[sol]

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.

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. 

No hate here, just a little eye rolling.  All opinions are welcome in the interest of respectful discussion.

The only hate I see is in your post, where you argue for discriminating against people.  Please tell us more about why you think discrimination against gay people is a good thing.  What's the societal benefit?  What about bisexual people who want straight marriages?  How do you feel about interracial marriage?  In the interest of inclusiveness and lots of fun, I personally invite you to contribute more.

[Midwest]

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.

You continue to bring up the KKK in an effort to prove that Christianity is intolerant and evil despite a tenuous connection at best.  The KKK is even less a Christian organization than ISIS a muslim.

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.

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.

[Philociraptor]

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.

[Midwest]

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.

I don't feel a need or desire to defend my religion to you.  I'll give you the same respect regarding your lack thereof.

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.

Glad you respect the positive aspects of religion even if  you are not all in on the all mighty being.

[Sparafusile]

You are comparing the atrocities that ISIS is committing to Christians campaigning against gay rights in the US?

Sure - they are both evil.

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.

Really? You do realize that "marriage" is more than just a label right? Until the ACA, my wife couldn't get insurance unless we were married. If we weren't married, I would have no say in life-or-death decisions regarding her. We have a tax benefit and have special rules concerning social security because we are married. And that's just on a federal level. Many wars have been started on unequal treatment just like this. I, for one, would be willing to fight (and yes, die) in order to be considered equal under the law. Fortunately, out country has ways to avoid that scenario and still overcome intolerance.

I gave you a perfectly reasonable position to complain about Christians and gay rights, yet you persist with the KKK line of reasoning. 

I first mentioned it as an off-hand comment among a myriad of other things. You're the one that has latched onto the KKK and demanded responses which I have provided. I'm not sure why you decided to dwell on that one point.

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.

You brought up ISIS, not me. In fact, I mentioned that it was too far off topic to continue discussing. I think you need to reread the debate since this "kitchen sink" you keep mentioning is equally a result of your argument. Besides, I'm going to rest my case after Mr. Tummy Mustache chimed in and made me ironically redundant.

[happyfeet]

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.

[dycker1978]

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.

Yet inclusive does not include gays hey?  Kinda hypocritical don't ya think?

[Midwest]

Sparafusile

We'll agree to disagree on your perceptions of Christianity.  Regarding latching on to the KKK or myriad of responses I demanded, that's a 2 way street.

Midwest.

[Philociraptor]

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.

Do you believe it's right for others, acting on similar beliefs, to vote to restrict the rights of homosexuals to enjoy the same benefits that our government gives to heterosexual couples? In that case, that is where we see things differently. However, if you're content to keep your belief AND allow others to have freedom of choice in their private lives, carry on dude!

[Tyson]

Well, the conversation around gay marriage at least has the civil rights paradigm to fall back on, so most of the time people can be shown that they are similar and thus the arguments stay substantive.

I remember arguing a lot back in the day about evolution and it's validity.  There was no prior paradigm to reference back to so those discussions tended to go completely off the rails. 

Ironically (or not), it was also ENTIRELY Christians that just "didn't accept" evolution.  So the anti-gay people are the same as the anti-science people.  Shocking, I tell you, shocking!

[enigmaT120]

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.

Just because it's a sin doesn't mean it should be illegal.  We're not a theocracy, and Jesus clearly said "My kingdom is not of this world."  I'll only worry about the ruling if somebody decides to make same sex marriage mandatory.

[dycker1978]

I have to say that I find it entertaining having done lots of reading on this decision that was made in the USA, how many people quote the bible and find it to be the absolute truth.  It was written a long time ago.  Although many believe it is the word of God, it was written by man.

Let say that in the beginning, it was the true word of God.  That he spoke through these men.  I am not here to debate this, I was not there, I do not know, but lets for argument sake say that is truth.

It was written in a language that is now dead.  It was translated to what it was.  It has been updated and changed into modern English.  I have two points here...

1. Who is to say, that in someone's best estimate, of what they were translating, they did not make a mistake, and translate this wrong.  Now what you are reading, is not precisely the word of God. It is but humans translation of what they think the original people meant.

2. Who is stopping, from any where in history, people manipulating this word to suit what their beliefs are.  People are power hungry in a lot of instances, and may change this to suit them.

I know a lot of people of all denominations.  There are good, bad, and crazy in all.  I refuse to believe in a book that could have been changed in either of these two ways.

And for the people that choose to follow the bible - I have read the bible, and a couple of lessons that I learnt from it are:

1. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. - This does not say love thy neighbor unless they are different than you.... does it?????

2. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” ... Only those who are faultless have the right to pass judgment upon others" - and we all know from the bible that sin is impossible to avoid, therefore none should judge.

Everyone is free to believe what they want, but if you are using Christianity to breed any kind of hate, you might want to reread the book that teaches you all.

[enigmaT120]

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.

[Sparafusile]

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.

Masturbation http://www.openbible.info/topics/masterbation
Pornography: 1 John 2:16 - For everything in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--comes not from the Father but from the world.
Football: Leviticus 11:7-8 - And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

[sol]

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.

[dycker1978]

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.

Very well said!

[Midwest]

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.

[Tyson]

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.

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!