Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
35 online now:
ooh-child, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq, Theodoric (8 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,847 Year: 16,883/19,786 Month: 1,008/2,598 Week: 254/251 Day: 25/58 Hour: 11/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 751 of 759 (768984)
09-15-2015 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 750 by Faith
09-15-2015 1:06 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
Faith writes:

I'm sure the court could have found a way to protect Christians from losing jobs and businesses on account of the stand we must take for Biblical marriage, but they chose not to.

No US Christians have been forced out of their business or jobs by the SCOTUS ruling. To claim otherwise is simply a lie.

Again; Christians are protected and to say otherwise is simply a lie. However since "Biblical Christianity" is built on the base of dishonesty and fantasy over reality or truth that should be expected.

No Christian in the US is forced to marry someone of the same sex or even approve of a same sex marriage any more than a Roman Catholic is forced to marry a divorced person or even approve of marriage of divorced people (although there is hope that last will change).

A License Clerk though is required to issue licenses. A Roman Catholic license clerk may not approve of divorced people getting married but still must issue the license.

But the real issue is that Biblical Christians love to whine and claim they are persecuted instead of acknowledging that the reality is that they are the persecutors.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by Faith, posted 09-15-2015 1:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 752 of 759 (768995)
09-15-2015 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 750 by Faith
09-15-2015 1:06 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
I'm sure the court could have found a way to protect Christians from losing jobs and businesses on account of the stand we must take for Biblical marriage, but they chose not to.

Faith, you're sure of a whole lot of things. Also, you're wrong a lot. No, the court can't quite do that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by Faith, posted 09-15-2015 1:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 753 of 759 (768996)
09-15-2015 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 743 by Percy
09-15-2015 8:41 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
They have not much in the way of evidence or even good arguments. Tradition and historical practices really can't override the Constitution, or justify the real injustices that even Faith admits to.

I am not convinced that the idea of expanding special privileges for religion will go very far. Certainly there are obvious problems. The last case of a clerk refusing to marry an interracial couple was surprisingly recent. And what happens when Muslims start to take advantage? Or even Satanists?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 743 by Percy, posted 09-15-2015 8:41 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 754 by NoNukes, posted 09-15-2015 2:04 PM PaulK has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 754 of 759 (769001)
09-15-2015 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by PaulK
09-15-2015 1:45 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
Tradition and historical practices really can't override the Constitution, or justify the real injustices that even Faith admits to.

That's ideally true, but in practice quite a few separation of church and state rulings illustrate that religious traditions sometime gets translated into a non-secular observation of decorum that the court then elects to tolerate. Such would seem to be the case in the cases involving religious opening prayers at government functions and the Ground Zero Cross case, and perhaps the most notorious case, the Lynch v. Donnelly case in which the Supreme Court found that a state sponsored nativity scene had a non-secular purpose.

The last decision allowing gay marriage in every state was not a slam dunk win by any stretch, it was a 5-4 decision with the result basically being Justice Kennedy's call. Contrast that with the unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of education. Yes, we can defend the ruling constitutionally with ease, but that does not mean that the ruling was inevitable.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2015 1:45 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 756 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2015 2:25 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 755 of 759 (769002)
09-15-2015 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 749 by NoNukes
09-15-2015 12:50 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
NoNukes writes:

It is certainly possible that I missed your meaning. What did you mean by the following?

If we trace marriage back to medieval times, originally all marriage was religious marriage.

Hmmm. Not phrased that well, it does seem confusing, maybe it read better in context. Clarifying, I wasn't arguing that medieval times are when we should judge marriage to have begun. I was suggesting that the origin of the modern entanglement of marriage and state was medieval times. That was when church/states in Europe began insisting on sanctifying marriages. I think your Wikipedia excerpt mentioned this.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 749 by NoNukes, posted 09-15-2015 12:50 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 756 of 759 (769007)
09-15-2015 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 754 by NoNukes
09-15-2015 2:04 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
Of course I was commenting on the strength of the opposing case. Not , sadly, on their chances of winning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 754 by NoNukes, posted 09-15-2015 2:04 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
saab93f
Member (Idle past 970 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 757 of 759 (769197)
09-17-2015 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 721 by ramoss
09-13-2015 10:29 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
I don't see how. How does a gay person getting married effect your marriage?

Apparently my marriage that has lasted for 21 yrs now is somewhat void and worthless (we are just oblivious to that fact)

In all honesty, I just cannot comprehend how the expansion of legal marriages would threaten heterosexual marriages. Are peeps telling that Jill and Jack, though they love each other and want to create a family together, would decide against it because somewhere else Jack and John can decide alike?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by ramoss, posted 09-13-2015 10:29 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 758 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2015 10:27 AM saab93f has not yet responded
 Message 759 by Stile, posted 09-17-2015 10:33 AM saab93f has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 758 of 759 (769212)
09-17-2015 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 757 by saab93f
09-17-2015 7:11 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
... depends if it's the same Jack, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 757 by saab93f, posted 09-17-2015 7:11 AM saab93f has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(6)
Message 759 of 759 (769213)
09-17-2015 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 757 by saab93f
09-17-2015 7:11 AM


The Final Scapegoat
saab93f writes:

Are peeps telling that Jill and Jack, though they love each other and want to create a family together, would decide against it because somewhere else Jack and John can decide alike?

Yes, that's all it is.
Pathetic, really.

They are invoking the last, and greatest, scapegoat.

"It's not me condemning you, it's God!"
"I don't hate you at all, it's just that God doesn't appreciate this sort of thing."
"These are not the punishments I want you to endure, they are what God is commanding us to do!"

"I am not responsible for what I do, I am only following God Himself."

A nice, still-currently-mostly socially acceptable, and easy way to turn feelings of contempt, jealousy and their own life's regrets into hurting others for "a good cause."

Any child can still identify the unnecessary and unwarranted pain that is being inflicted upon gays and lesbians from this whole pile of poop.
It's obvious and glaring and can only be pushed aside by years of uncaring and unloving living.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 757 by saab93f, posted 09-17-2015 7:11 AM saab93f has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019