Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-15-2018 10:33 AM
176 online now:
jar, PaulK (2 members, 174 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,912 Year: 11,735/29,783 Month: 757/1,642 Week: 171/460 Day: 10/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7374
75
7677
...
84Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Faith
Member
Posts: 29150
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1111 of 1258 (834683)
06-10-2018 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1109 by Modulous
06-09-2018 7:52 PM


Re: Constitutional freedom of religion and its discontents
Good for you, Mod.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1109 by Modulous, posted 06-09-2018 7:52 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1117 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2018 11:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14225
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1112 of 1258 (834687)
06-10-2018 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1106 by Faith
06-09-2018 6:44 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
quote:

It's about heterosexual unions, which is the natural source of children, that principle is what the benefits honor.

There are many heterosexual couples who cannot produce children. A number of them resort to various means to produce children. If you give the benefits of marriage to them, what is the justification for withholding them from gay couples ? And does it matter how children are produced?

quote:

Other funds are available for other situations anyway.

But it is not just money, and certainly not just giving money. Even if equivalent funds were available - and let’s be honest they aren’t - the official recognition of the relationship counts for a lot. Visiting rights in hospital, for instance, can depend on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1106 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 6:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1113 by dwise1, posted 06-10-2018 3:39 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3162
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1113 of 1258 (834688)
06-10-2018 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1112 by PaulK
06-10-2018 2:58 AM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
Speaking of children, same-sex couples with children (AKA "families", of which there are many) need the same legal protections and treatment as different-sex families.

About half a decade ago I heard an NPR article about the problem that they face, especially when they had to depend on a patchworks of state laws to be able to travel safely. The situation they cited was where in their home state (if they were lucky), either spouse could authorize medical treatment for their children. But if they travel to or through another state whose laws did not allow that, then not only could they face the situation of there having been an accident and not being allowed to have an injured child received medical treatment. Furthermore, these families were always in danger of the state taking their children from them -- as I recall, the reason given would be abandonment since the children had been left with a "stranger" (ie, the spouse who has been helping to raise the children, but whom that state refuses to recognize).

The event being covered in that was a large group of same-sex families converging on DC and speaking face-to-face with their congressmen in order to make them aware of this problem. And part of the problem was that confusing patchwork of laws which needed to be replaced by federal law, or at the very least a federal law requiring all states to observe the family law of another state.

And this also reinforces your point that having children has nothing to do with heterosexual unions. If sole reason that a same-sex marriage cannot be allowed is because they cannot produce children directly, then that same reason should be applied to disallow the marriage of infertile couples (for whatever reason, including but not limited to regular infertility, being too old (past child-bearing age), injuries or surgeries which make having children impossible (eg, a hysterectomy, tubal ligation, vasectomy), etc).

Since infertile couples are allowed to marry, that reveals how false and misleading that "it's about making babies and caring for them" tripe is. Especially when you are endangering the children of same-sex families. If it were truly about ensuring the safety of children, then the opponents of same-sex marriage should be pushing for same-sex families to receive the same legal protections as heterosexual families. But they do not, which exposes their deception.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1112 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2018 2:58 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1114 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:04 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29150
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1114 of 1258 (834690)
06-10-2018 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1113 by dwise1
06-10-2018 3:39 AM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
As I thought I said, it is the PRINCIPLE of heterosexual union which is the NATURAL source of children that qualifies for the benefits of marriage, that's what society intended to encourage. Marriage didn't have to be the solution to the dilemmas you are talking about, they should have come up with a different omnibus solution to the problems.. It might have been difficult but better in the long run..

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1113 by dwise1, posted 06-10-2018 3:39 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1115 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2018 4:31 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14225
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1115 of 1258 (834694)
06-10-2018 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1114 by Faith
06-10-2018 4:04 AM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
quote:

As I thought I said, it is the PRINCIPLE of heterosexual union which is the NATURAL source of children that qualifies for the benefits of marriage, that's what society intended to encourage.

Why exactly should the law follow this arcane principle over more practical views of the situation ? Indeed, why has there been no move to make the law conform more to this principle, by denying marriage to known infertile heterosexual couples ? Or by making divorce between childless couples simple and easy ? (That in itself suggests that there is rather more to marriage than raising children)

quote:

Marriage didn't have to be the solution to the dilemmas you are talking about, they should have come up with a different omnibus solution to the problems..

As I have pointed out, one very good reason is that “Christians” would have worked to sabotage it.

quote:

It might have been difficult but better in the long run..

It would have been a lot more difficult and very likely worse because of people on your side. The sort of people who get upset when companies allowed gay partners to receive health insurance benefits.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1114 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:04 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1119 by NoNukes, posted 06-10-2018 3:26 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6493
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1116 of 1258 (834703)
06-10-2018 10:30 AM


An opinion from The Nation
This week's issue of The Nation has published an opinion column by a reporter, Sarah Posner.

She's less optimistic about the implications of the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling. She fears that Justice Kennedy is prepared to open a "religious exception" to anti-discrimination laws.

Personally, I think Posner is misreading the decisions and seems to not have gotten the point made by Justices Kagan and Breyer.

Nonetheless, it could very well be that Kennedy himself is on the fence here and might end up swinging either way if and when a more definitive case comes before the court. I mildly surprised if he would rule in favor of a religious exemption in a similar case as this, but I admit I wouldn't be very, very surprised.



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

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1117 of 1258 (834705)
06-10-2018 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1111 by Faith
06-10-2018 1:14 AM


Re: Constitutional freedom of religion and its discontents
Good for you, Mod.

Thanks. Turns out it's basically the same as living in a Christian or Jewish neighbourhood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1111 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 1:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14906
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 1118 of 1258 (834706)
06-10-2018 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1100 by Faith
06-09-2018 5:54 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
Faith writes:

If it was just a matter of individuals practing their beliefs, and their beliefs are not violent or destructive of society, no problem, but unfortunately that isn't the case with all religions.


You seem to have lost the plot. What we're talking about here is gay marriage, not destroying society. The point is that your religious beliefs are as valid as anybody else's but society can not entrench you beliefs at the expense of everybody else's. You can believe until the cows come home that God hates homosexuality but you can not act on that belief any more than somebody else can act on his belief that infidels should be killed. Your beliefs are protected; your actions are not.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1100 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 5:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1120 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 3:40 PM ringo has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10856
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1119 of 1258 (834710)
06-10-2018 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1115 by PaulK
06-10-2018 4:31 AM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
As I have pointed out, one very good reason is that “Christians” would have worked to sabotage it.

Would have? We don't need to make hypotheticals or speculate. Obergefell v Hodges and the other attached cases were all about state enforced indignities lumped on gay couples. Not being able to be listed on a death certificate so their loved ones could be cremated, lack of support for their adopted children or their rights to adopt. And states like North Carolina not only outlawed gay marriage, they outlawed any attempt for recognition of gay unions including state granted rights.

Had that not been the way the states were screwing over the civil rights of their citizens, April DeBoer, James Obergefell, David Michener would not have had injuries to complain about. The Supreme Court was left with little choice but to declare that not having your marriage recognized was an injury that was not allowable under the Constitution.


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 1115 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2018 4:31 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29150
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1120 of 1258 (834714)
06-10-2018 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1118 by ringo
06-10-2018 2:09 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
The point is that your religious beliefs are as valid as anybody else's but society can not entrench you beliefs at the expense of everybody else's. You can believe until the cows come home ...but you can not act on that belief any more than somebody else can act on his belief that infidels should be killed. Your beliefs are protected; your actions are not.

Indeed. As I said, I accept the handwriting on the wall. So dies Truth, the basis of western civilization, iinterestingly and ironically by being made to serve a lie. I wonder how long it will be before some of those other "beliefs" show that they are going to act on them no matter what the law says and that their beliefs require actions that are violent tyrannies to subjugate all other beliefs, beliefs, in other words, that respect none of your fancy philosophies about Rights and equality. A few decades maybe? By which time you'll all have forgotten history so thoroughly you'll just be happy dhimmies anyway. Or dead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1118 by ringo, posted 06-10-2018 2:09 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1121 by ringo, posted 06-10-2018 3:55 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1123 by Chiroptera, posted 06-11-2018 9:59 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14906
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 1121 of 1258 (834720)
06-10-2018 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1120 by Faith
06-10-2018 3:40 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
Faith writes:

So dies Truth, the basis of western civilization, iinterestingly and ironically by being made to serve a lie.


The only lie here is your misinterpretation of the Bible, coupled with your misinterpretation of the Constitution, your misinterpretation of history, etc.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1120 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 3:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1122 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:45 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29150
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1122 of 1258 (834729)
06-10-2018 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1121 by ringo
06-10-2018 3:55 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
Right. So dies the Truth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1121 by ringo, posted 06-10-2018 3:55 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1124 by ringo, posted 06-11-2018 11:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6493
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 1123 of 1258 (834765)
06-11-2018 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1120 by Faith
06-10-2018 3:40 PM


Re: What about messages to other religions?
I wonder how long it will be before some of those other "beliefs" show that they are going to act on them no matter what the law says and that their beliefs require actions that are violent tyrannies to subjugate all other beliefs, beliefs....

The individual's belief is a matter of right, and, in fact, this decision in this case we're talking about right here, Masterpiece Cakeshop, shows that belief is a protected right; it's so protected that it's not allowed to use belief to decide whether an action should be legal or illegal.

An action can be illegal in the US only after considering how the action itself affects the parties involved, not the religious beliefs of the participants. The Supreme Court here ruled in favor of Jack Phillips because there is a reasonable suspicion that the lower court was basing its decision on its opinion of Phillips' belief not solely on how compelling him to create a wedding cake or not creating a wedding cake will affect Phillips on one hand and Craig and Mullins on the other in there free exercise of their civil rights.

-

Once a person moves from belief to action, that's when the state can take action. That's was happened in Obergefl. It had nothing to do with whether certain beliefs about marriage were reasonable or offensive. It was about how the actual laws denying same sex couples affected the citizens of the state. It turns out that the benefits to the general public of the state (and actually, there were no benefits whatsoever, or almost none) did not outweigh the harm it was doing to the same sex couples.

-

...beliefs, in other words, that respect none of your fancy philosophies about Rights and equality. A few decades maybe?

In a few decades? How about starting centuries ago? In the US, there have always been people who advocated and even engaged in violence to enact their beliefs. Protestants, Mormons, white supremacists, Anarchists, and so on.

How did we deal with this in the past? Not be generally suspending Constitutional norms. In some cases, we were able to successfully use the usual methods of law enforcement to catch the perpetrators before they were able to put their plans of violent action into effect; a few others were regrettably able to carry out their acts of violence, but ordinary law enforcement was able to catch the perpetrators and bring them to justice or, at the very least, force them to live long periods underground, running from the law, showing that whatever ordinary citizens believe, they cannot act with impunity.

In fact, the group that was the most successful in carrying out their violent beliefs into action were the white supremacists. The were able to elect their white supremacists leaders into public office, enact white supremacist laws, try people in white supremacist kangaroo courts, and engage in white supremacist extrajudicial violence with impunity.

At least for a while. How did this end? By the people using their Constitutional rights to free expression to convince the majority that such violence was wrong, and then using these majorities to remove white supremacist laws and white supremacist procedures, to bring perpetrators of white supremacist violence to justice, and to break up the organizations that were actively engaged in white supremacist violence, all within Constitutional norms.

Not that this was perfect, but it seemed to produce the necessary results in the end.

What would make Jesuits or Muslims any different?

-

But then, it can't be denied that white supremacist violence is making a come back. Maybe if Constitutional norms were suspended in the fight against white supremacist, we could have rooted them out more completely.

But, I fear that there would have a cost of creating the type of society I would find less pleasant to live in. Interesting, even those most at danger from white supremacist violence don't seem to be advocating a suspension of Constitutional norms.

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.



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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1120 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 3:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14906
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1124 of 1258 (834766)
06-11-2018 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1122 by Faith
06-10-2018 4:45 PM


Re: What about messages to other religiouns?
Faith writes:

So dies the Truth.


The truth died in you a long time ago, as evidenced by the fact that you're wrong about almost everything. You seem to embrace being wrong. You seem to like being wrong just for the sake of being wrong.

Ignorance is curable. I don't know if determination to be wrong in all things is curable.


An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1122 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 1125 of 1258 (835229)
06-20-2018 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1106 by Faith
06-09-2018 6:44 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
It's about heterosexual unions, which is the natural source of children, that principle is what the benefits honor. Other funds are available for other situations anyway.

I'm just as annoyed by people who parade around their sexuality as if it's some kind of a virtue just as much as you are. But lets not conflate that to mean that it's a trait exhibited by all homosexuals, or heterosexuals, for that matter. What difference does it make if little Johnny has two mom's who love him and care for his needs? What's little Johnny's natural alternative if his biological father or mother are junkies, are pederasts, are abusers? All because it's "natural?" I don't understand that argument.

Surrogacy isn't "natural." Adoption isn't "natural" in a biological sense. Incidentally, Ebola is natural. And so is Tetanus. And cancer. It isn't natural for human beings to fly in the air in metal tubes with synthetic wings that are fueled by decaying organic matter either.... but we still do it.

You speak of nature in honorific terms, but nature is the ultimate neutral force in this world. It doesn't give a shit about our agendas or ideologies... it just is what it is.

Nature doesn't de facto = good.

Nature is..... just...... natural. And that's it. It's going to do what it does regardless of our religious convictions, or socio-political beliefs, or our deepest, time-honored traditions.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1106 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 6:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1126 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 5:27 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
7374
75
7677
...
84Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018