Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 11:32 PM
286 online now:
(286 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,321 Year: 15,144/29,783 Month: 1,088/1,502 Week: 86/492 Day: 49/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7172
73
7475
...
91NextFF
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6513
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 1081 of 1358 (834586)
06-08-2018 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1071 by Faith
06-08-2018 2:37 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
there is no biblical ordinance against a wedding between the two sexes whoever they are.

Well, you see, here's the thing: it is not the government's place to determine what is or is not a "biblical ordinance." The First Amendment requires the government to treat all religions and all relgious beliefs on the same basis -- again, not a twisted interpretation but a pretty standard understanding.

If your standard conservative Protestant can use their religious beliefs to refuse to serve a same sex couple, then an anti-Semitic Christian can use their beliefs to refuse service to a Jewish couple, and a follower of the Christian Identity movement can use their religious beliefs to refuse service to an interracial couple. The government is not allowed to determine which religious beliefs are correct or justified. The government can only treat them the same and allow all these people to discriminate or to allow none of them to discriminate.



Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing. - George Orwell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1071 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 2:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1083 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 3:48 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29820
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1082 of 1358 (834587)
06-08-2018 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1080 by Chiroptera
06-08-2018 3:38 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
Probably but they're wrong. This is a fairly recent revisionist reading of it. Of course the law is the law even if it's as wrongheaded as it's possible to be. Everything is upside down these days.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1080 by Chiroptera, posted 06-08-2018 3:38 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29820
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1083 of 1358 (834588)
06-08-2018 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1081 by Chiroptera
06-08-2018 3:43 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
You are rightg, it used to be that "religion" was understood to mean the Christian religion, but that's no longer the case. We are now going for full-fledged revisionist law and total paganism, and I don't see any way to stop it short of God's intervening, and I think He's probably at the point where He's just going to let it all play out as judgment against us. I know this makes no sense to you and nothing I say can change that so I just have to live with it.

If your standard conservative Protestant can use their religious beliefs to refuse to serve a same sex couple

For the bazillionth time, this is not about "serving a same sex couple," since they can have whatever they want EXCEPT a custom made wedding item. It's about MARRIAGE, jnot about gays. This makes the rest of your statement irrelevant since it's about persons, which this is not.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1081 by Chiroptera, posted 06-08-2018 3:43 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1087 by Chiroptera, posted 06-08-2018 4:31 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1088 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2018 4:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14408
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1084 of 1358 (834589)
06-08-2018 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1078 by Faith
06-08-2018 3:35 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
quote:

Benefits were extended to married couples to encourage marriage between the sexes and the raising of children. There's really no rational basis for extending them to any other kind of "couple" although I wouldn't fight finding some way to do it without official marriage myself, some of them anyway.

Unfortunately for you, whatever the intent there was no requirement for a couple to be capable of producing children. There was no great movement agitating to add this requirement. It only seems to be trotted out to deny marriage benefits to gay couples.

And, of course, gay or lesbian couples may have children in the same ways that couples where one partner is infertile May have children. Are the children of gay couples to be denied the support that marriage is intended to provide ?

quote:

I guess nobody will ever appreciate the concept of protecting marriage as a social institution, as opposed to this ridiculous idea that gay marriage affects individual heterosexuals' marriages. That is such a bogus piece of nonsense.

That’s because you aren’t protecting marriage as a social institution. Extending the benefits to gay couples is no threat to that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1078 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 3:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1085 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 3:52 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29820
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1085 of 1358 (834590)
06-08-2018 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1084 by PaulK
06-08-2018 3:50 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
Right. Same old same old.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1084 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2018 3:50 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1086 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2018 4:15 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14408
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(3)
Message 1086 of 1358 (834597)
06-08-2018 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1085 by Faith
06-08-2018 3:52 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
You have to admit that if the benefits of marriage are to help raise children it makes no sense to give them to a childless heterosexual couple while denying them to a gay couple with children.

And yet that is what you wish to do. Obviously it is not about raising children.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1085 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 3:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1106 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 6:44 PM PaulK has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6513
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 1087 of 1358 (834598)
06-08-2018 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1083 by Faith
06-08-2018 3:48 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
You are rightg, it used to be that "religion" was understood to mean the Christian religion, but that's no longer the case.

Even if that were the case, you do realize that only a minority of Americans today accept what you consider to be the "correct tenets" of the Christian faith, don't you?

It would certainly be an odd sort of democratic republic if the citizens based their constitutional principles on a foundation in which the majority did not believe.



Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing. - George Orwell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1083 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 3:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1090 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 7:03 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14408
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 1088 of 1358 (834599)
06-08-2018 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1083 by Faith
06-08-2018 3:48 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
quote:

it used to be that "religion" was understood to mean the Christian religion, but that's no longer the case.

It was no longer the case when Jefferson was working on religious freedom in Virginia. Before the Bill of Rights.

Maybe it was when Maryland graciously allowed equal rights to the Puritans (who rebelled, seized power and revoked the law so they could oppress the Catholics)

quote:

We are now going for full-fledged revisionist law and total paganism,

Obviously the “Christians” are going for “full-fledged revisionist law” but I think it’s Satanism rather than paganism they want.

[ABE]
Concerning the Virginia Bill, Jefferson wrote in his autobiography


The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1083 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 3:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1089 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2018 5:20 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1089 of 1358 (834600)
06-08-2018 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1088 by PaulK
06-08-2018 4:37 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
quote:
The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.

Wow. Scalia was right about something else. I think my current count is eight.

https://www.nytimes.com/...elauf-abercrombie-fitch-case.html

quote:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday revived an employment discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch, which had refused to hire a Muslim woman because she wore a head scarf. The company said the scarf clashed with its dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”

“This is really easy,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in announcing the decision from the bench.

The company, he said, at least suspected that the applicant, Samantha Elauf, wore the head scarf for religious reasons. The company’s decision not to hire her, Justice Scalia said, was motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her religious practice. That was enough, he concluded, to allow her to sue under a federal employment discrimination law.

The vote was 8 to 1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.



Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1088 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2018 4:37 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29820
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1090 of 1358 (834602)
06-08-2018 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1087 by Chiroptera
06-08-2018 4:31 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
Only half a century ago "God" would have meant the Christian God in America and probably Europe too. Yes that has changed. We've been through a huge sea change since then, going toward all out paganism, or maybe Islam will take us over first. Could be neck and neck.

In the time of the Founding I think more than 95% of the population considered themselves Christians and the great majority remained at least nominally Christian until the last half century or so.

Yes we will now have a pagan interpretation of our Constitution as we are getting a pagan culture that would support it. Quite right.

I'm sorry of course because the God of the Bible is the one true God and Christianity is the most beautiful thing that ever happened to the world, even apart from salvation through Christ's death which you won't find in any form in any other religion.

Lost the rest of the post. Oh well.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1087 by Chiroptera, posted 06-08-2018 4:31 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1091 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2018 8:56 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1096 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2018 1:39 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1098 by ringo, posted 06-09-2018 11:58 AM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1091 of 1358 (834606)
06-08-2018 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1090 by Faith
06-08-2018 7:03 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
Only half a century ago "God" would have meant the Christian God in America and probably Europe too.

That was never the interpretation of the first amendment. As Paul has shown, the authors always intended it to include protection for other religions.

But I hear where you are going from. I remember those days when you could call a spade a spade.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1090 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 7:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1092 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 9:17 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29820
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1092 of 1358 (834608)
06-08-2018 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1091 by NoNukes
06-08-2018 8:56 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
Your utterly misplaced sarcasm at least provides something for me to answer.

Jefferson and possibly Washington supported the idea of protecting all religions under the First Amendment, not sure who else. After the Constitution was accepted many Christians protested that it betrayed the Christian foundations of the nation. And to grant protections to religions like Islam and Roman Catholicism that aim to subjugate the whole world to their system, by the sword and the Inquisition if necessary, is extreme foolishness. That is what the first settlers in America were fleeing and hoped to orevent getting a foothold in the new land. Too late now. Here we are and I'm accepting the handwriting on the wall.

And by the way don't get the idea I think there was anything perfect about the "Christian" era of the nation; it's probably due to our failures that we are under God's judgment now and our enemies are gaining in power.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1091 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2018 8:56 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1093 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2018 9:59 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1094 by Chiroptera, posted 06-08-2018 10:29 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1093 of 1358 (834613)
06-08-2018 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1092 by Faith
06-08-2018 9:17 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
Jefferson and possibly Washington supported the idea of protecting all religions under the First Amendment, not sure who else. After the Constitution was accepted many Christians protested that it betrayed the Christian foundations of the nation.

I think the point is that there is nothing revisionist about the current interpretation of the first amendment. Further, there is a history of abuse that more than justifies what Jefferson did. Puritans vs Quakers vs Catholics from the very early days of this nation.

Faith writes:

And to grant protections to religions like Islam and Roman Catholicism that aim to subjugate the whole world to their system, by the sword and the Inquisition if necessary, is extreme foolishness

Yikes.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1092 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 9:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6513
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 1094 of 1358 (834614)
06-08-2018 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1092 by Faith
06-08-2018 9:17 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
And to grant protections to religions like Islam and Roman Catholicism that aim to subjugate the whole world to their system, by the sword and the Inquisition if necessary, is extreme foolishness.

The Constitution does not protect Islam or Roman Catholicism. It protects the rights of individual Muslims and Catholics to believe and worship as they will -- an important distinction, in my opinion. And the Constitution definitely does not grant anyone the right to stab people with swords or to put anyone through an auto-da-fé.

Come to think of it, it protects Jack Phillips' right to believe that same sex marriage is wrong but doesn't grant him the right to violate the civil rights of same sex couples.

In fact, vigorous protection of people's First Amendment rights is what prevents things like the Inquisition from happening. If the Roman Catholics ever can institute an inquisition, it would be because conservative Protestants would have already weakened First Amendment protections.



Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing. - George Orwell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1092 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 9:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1095 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 11:35 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29820
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1095 of 1358 (834617)
06-08-2018 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1094 by Chiroptera
06-08-2018 10:29 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
Both religions seek to grow their population to outnumber others and to gain political power thereby. That's the consequence of protecting the religion. Though it will mostly be the leaders and not the people who become the problem. Islam already gets special rights to protect their honor code and Sharia Law in their areas; we've already got a Jeseuit professor calling the Constitution so antiquated it should be done away with. Give it time. I'd like to think you were right about the power of the First Amendment and in the short run it works OK but you have to ignore trends of the sort I just mentioned, which we do because they seem like oddball individual situations; but they aren't, they are the tip of the spear; and I don't think you are right in the long run.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1094 by Chiroptera, posted 06-08-2018 10:29 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1097 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2018 3:21 AM Faith has responded
 Message 1099 by Chiroptera, posted 06-09-2018 1:02 PM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
7172
73
7475
...
91NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018