Christian Leaders Threaten Civil Disobedience Pending SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling

[jamie26301]

The last I checked, we lived in a democratic republic, where the voice of the majority DOES determine how laws are both created and executed. You don't always like the result, and neither do I, but that's how it is. Certain minorities only have special rights because the majority, through their elected representatives, have given them special rights, or created frameworks under which those special rights may be exacted.

I think what she means is as a Republic, there are certain rights that are NON-NEGOTIABLE, and apply to each and every person, regardless of what the majority thinks. Because the person is human, and as those rights innately.

If the town wants to go on a witch hunt by way of simple suspicion, the suspect they wish to hang STILL gets due process and a fair trial... doesn't matter that everyone thinks that person is guilty.

Now, those kinds of rights are a handful - but we are moving away from this objective rule of law and order.

I don't think standing up for what so many people are trying to discard, these fundamental rights - that frankly, are designed to protect the falsely accused and prevent arbitrary arrest - for convenience and deluded fantasies of safety is trolling.

This should be discussed with far more vigor, than gay marriage. We are letting it slip through our fingers. Wanting to pile another law onto marriage to fix what the law created! Seems we all need to go look up insanity, because I suspect we suffer from it.

 

[Percepi]

That is not what I said.

I can not stop them from getting married, and it is not about that.
BUT when they ask, no DEMAND that I approve of that wedding, that makes me a part of that wickness, and I have the right to say NO, I believe that it is a sin.

I have never said that you could not believe or say anything you want to.
I never said you could not live anyway you wish.
That is between you and God.
BUT you do not have a right to stop me from saying what I believe, live a lifestyle I believe is acceptable to God, and refuse to be a part of something God calls an ABOMINATION.

Nobody is telling you that you're not allowed to be against gay marriage. We're telling you that you're wrong.

And allowing gays to get married is not an endorsement of their lifestyle any more than allowing people not to believe in God is an endorsement of atheism.

 

[3Scoreand10]

Nobody is telling you that you're not allowed to be against gay marriage. We're telling you that you're wrong.

And allowing gays to get married is not an endorsement of their lifestyle any more than allowing people not to believe in God is an endorsement of atheism.

I just agree with God.
So you are saying that God is wrong.
Young man you are walking od dangerous ground.

 

[PennEd]

YOU'RE not the one getting married. You wouldn't be taking part in their marriage AT ALL.

However...

YOU'RE telling them they can't get married because of YOUR religious views.

You have it 100% backwards. According to your logic, YOU'RE infringing on MY rights. I don't agree with what you said, therefore you're infringing on MY freedom of speech. Doesn't make sense? You're the one who conceptualized this backwards logic.



A Democratic Republic is a government in which certain rules are established that can not be infringed upon without due process (rules the government must abide by). The 1st Amendment dictates that laws can not be created that establishes any religion. So outlawing gay marriage based on religious reasoning is literally unconstitutional.

Oh, and we don't actually live in a democratic society. Only a fraction of people in power, elected or otherwise, have votes that actually count.

What he's saying is WE will not recognize the marriage, take part in it, in any way shape or form. This means making homosexual themed wedding cakes, photographing it, renting a hall for it etc.. or participate with it in any other imaginable way.

If you want to call yourself married to another man that's your business. MY business is in no way recognizing, or acknowledging it.

 

[maxwel]

YOU'RE not the one getting married. You wouldn't be taking part in their marriage AT ALL.

However...

YOU'RE telling them they can't get married because of YOUR religious views.

You have it 100% backwards. According to your logic, YOU'RE infringing on MY rights. I don't agree with what you said, therefore you're infringing on MY freedom of speech. Doesn't make sense? You're the one who conceptualized this backwards logic.



A Democratic Republic is a government in which certain rules are established that can not be infringed upon without due process (rules the government must abide by). The 1st Amendment dictates that laws can not be created that establishes any religion. So outlawing gay marriage based on religious reasoning is literally unconstitutional.

Oh, and we don't actually live in a democratic society. Only a fraction of people in power, elected or otherwise, have votes that actually count.

1. I STARTED my post by CLEARLY STATING we are in a "democratic republic"... so to start with, you seem to enjoy misquoting anyone who disagrees with you. Well, either that or you can't read. Both of those pretty much disqualify you from having any credible debate.

2. You're really reaching and fabricating nonsense with that whole thing about "establishing any religion". If citizens are concerned about gay marriage laws, feeling they may negatively impact the ability of churches and private businesses to conduct themselves with freedom, liberty, and autonomy, as their conscience dictates... that has NOTHING to do with "establishing any religion".

No one is telling everyone in the country to BECOME Methodists or Presbyterians, or to SUPPORT Methodists or Presbyterians, or even to just AGREE with any particular religion. YOU just live in a whole fantasy world of equivocation don't you?
Yeah?
Just equivocate, build a straw man on that equivocation, and then attack right?
This same nonsense is SO tiring.
It's old, it's tiring, and it's boring.
Seriously, try a new method sometime... one that doesn't violate simple logic.

The fact is: many people have morals, ethics, and OPINIONS that have nothing to do with any particular religion, or even with religion at all. Ethical values, moral values, and opinions, have NOTHING to do with "establishing any religion."

All laws are based on value judgements of SOME KIND. YOU obviously, and clearly, want laws based on YOUR value judgements. So MY value judgements should be summarily dismissed, but YOUR valued judgements are inherently perfect and beautiful because... mmm... I don't know... because they come from YOU?

Enough of the absurdity.

Really, is there some reason you spend so much time here spouting off all the same tired equivocation, troll-worthy polemics, and dishonest argumentation?
You really don't have anyone else to play with?
Isn't there an atheist forum someplace where people would actually LISTEN to your opinions?
Do you realize nobody here listens to anything you say except other atheists?
Do you realize you have no impact here on anything, or anyone?
Do you realize you're virtually invisible here, and you might as well be talking to yourself?
Do you realize you are just wasting your time, and wasting our forum space?
Do you not have anything useful, anything productive or meaningful, to do with your time, or with your life?
Do you honestly have nothing productive or meaningful to do with your life?

 

[Percepi]

I just agree with God.
So you are saying that God is wrong.
Young man you are walking od dangerous ground.

Old man, you're wrong to suggest that it is right to force people to abide by your religion. You are wrong to suggest that allowing others to get married is the same as endorsing their marriage. As I said before (and no doubt you ignored it because it contradicts your stubborn mindset), you aren't endorsing atheism by allowing others not to believe in God. You aren't endorsing alcohol consumption by allowing others to drink alcohol. You aren't endorsing liberalism by allowing others to vote for liberals. So you'd be a fool to believe allowing gay marriage is the same as endorsing it.

Guess what! It's possible to say, "I support the right for gays to get married, but keep it out of my church." That's the magic of our 1st Amendment! You can't force your religion on other people, and other people can't force you religious institutions to support views they clearly don't support.

That's the American way.

 

[jamie26301]

2. You're really reaching and fabricating nonsense with that whole thing about "establishing any religion". If citizens are concerned about gay marriage laws, feeling they may negatively impact the ability of churches and private businesses to conduct themselves with freedom, liberty, and autonomy, as their conscience dictates... that has NOTHING to do with "establishing any religion"

I agree this is a possibility. Incest is outlawed, and you could trace that to religion, but it is outlawed because of clear scientific proof that it is harmful and bad for society. So far as homosexuality, I don't know how it is.

If you we could to argue it out of law on grounds besides religion, I'd like to know what that is, if you'll share. I really am ignorant of what justification could be beyond religious conviction.

I agree the law shouldn't force churches to participate. But likewise, the Church shouldn't define the law.

 

[PennEd]

I agree this is a possibility. Incest is outlawed, and you could trace that to religion, but it is outlawed because of clear scientific proof that it is harmful and bad for society. So far as homosexuality, I don't know how it is.

If you we could to argue it out of law on grounds besides religion, I'd like to know what that is, if you'll share. I really am ignorant of what justification could be beyond religious conviction.

I agree the law shouldn't force churches to participate. But likewise, the Church shouldn't define the law.

Homosexuals are still LARGELY to blame for the spread of a whole host of diseases, not JUST AIDS.

Using your logic society and science wouldn't have an issue with 2 brothers marrying.

 

[Angela53510]

Old man, you're wrong to suggest that it is right to force people to abide by your religion. You are wrong to suggest that allowing others to get married is the same as endorsing their marriage. As I said before (and no doubt you ignored it because it contradicts your stubborn mindset), you aren't endorsing atheism by allowing others not to believe in God. You aren't endorsing alcohol consumption by allowing others to drink alcohol. You aren't endorsing liberalism by allowing others to vote for liberals. So you'd be a fool to believe allowing gay marriage is the same as endorsing it.

Guess what! It's possible to say, "I support the right for gays to get married, but keep it out of my church." That's the magic of our 1st Amendment! You can't force your religion on other people, and other people can't force you religious institutions to support views they clearly don't support.

That's the American way.

Well, I'm not American, but I lived in the US for 2 years, and I watch American shows, TV and news, on occasion. So I do keep in touch with what is going on in the USA.

So it seems to me, that when you FORCE someone to bake a cake or make a flower arrangement for an occasion that is against THEIR beliefs, have you not violated the First Admendment??

I just know in Canada, we have had gay marriage for 10 years. I am not happy with it, but I know that I have never heard of a case of anyone being forced to do something regarding gay marriage against their religious beliefs, except for Justice's of the Peace in Saskatchewan being required to marry gays. Yes, they lost a lot of JP when they brought that legislation in.

So what is this battle really about, from what I see, as an outsider?

It seems obvious to me, that a certain percentage of the liberal, LGTB population is trying to grind Christians into the ground. (Not saying all, but the militant branch!)

I just don't see why someone wanting a wedding cake couldn't walk down the street to a different baker, and get it done there. That would be the Canadian way!

 

[jamie26301]

Homosexuals are still LARGELY to blame for the spread of a whole host of diseases, not JUST AIDS.

Sure, but the AIDS thing IS more prevalent among homosexuals (health professor said this), because the act has a greater chance of transmitting blood, because of the strain, or something. It is more likely to spread that way, than normal intercourse WHILE IT CAN AND DOES go that way to.

Using your logic society and science wouldn't have an issue with 2 brothers marrying.

Huh? Would you elaborate? I don't understand.

 

[3Scoreand10]

Old man, you're wrong to suggest that it is right to force people to abide by your religion. You are wrong to suggest that allowing others to get married is the same as endorsing their marriage. As I said before (and no doubt you ignored it because it contradicts your stubborn mindset), you aren't endorsing atheism by allowing others not to believe in God. You aren't endorsing alcohol consumption by allowing others to drink alcohol. You aren't endorsing liberalism by allowing others to vote for liberals. So you'd be a fool to believe allowing gay marriage is the same as endorsing it.

Guess what! It's possible to say, "I support the right for gays to get married, but keep it out of my church." That's the magic of our 1st Amendment! You can't force your religion on other people, and other people can't force you religious institutions to support views they clearly don't support.

That's the American way.

Take that up with God.
I know, you don't believe in God now, but someday when you stand before Him, you will bend you knee and confess that He is real, but it will be to late.
As I said, you are living on dangerous ground.

 

[Lizathrose]

The last I checked, we lived in a democratic republic, where the voice of the majority DOES determine how laws are both created and executed.

...Which is entirely irrelevant to the concept of minority rights with respect to equal protection under law, which is indeed an established, accepted, and thoroughly espoused component of every contemporary democratic society currently in existence -- even if minority rights are often abused or neglected in practice by the presiding majority. To clarify a possible misconception on your part, I certainly respect majority rule as the primary component of the democratic process. Minorities and minority beliefs and rights are nevertheless protected under the law in contemporary democracies through both both national constitutions and legal precedents, which establish rights and privileges that extend equally to all parties in society. While majority opinions certainly direct the pace and extent of minority rights to a large extent, the fact of the matter is that majority rule has always been legally balanced by minority rights.

An obvious, pertinent example of this would be the fact that neo-Nazi groups are allowed to demonstrate in Western democracies through their right to protest, even though such acts are almost universally condemned. Another example would be flag desecration, which has generally been protected as a component of free speech in spite of a vocal majority in opposition.

or created frameworks under which those special rights may be exacted.

...Such as the legal framework outlined above, which, incidentally, is precisely what I've been driving at. I'm not entirely certain if we even disagree on anything mentioned here, at this point. My statement concerning the irrelevance of the majority opinion was, as outlined in the preceding sentence, a reflection of the legally indefensible and predominantly religious prohibitions on SSM that currently exist in numerous US states. The sentence in question? "A purely religious objection to a phenomenon in a legally and politically secular nation is invalid as a legal justification."

 

[Percepi]

1. I STARTED my post by CLEARLY STATING we are in a "democratic republic"... so to start with, you seem to enjoy misquoting anyone who disagrees with you. Well, either that or you can't read. Both of those pretty much disqualify you from having any credible debate.

Call it what you want, but you defined a democracy.

2. You're really reaching and fabricating nonsense with that whole thing about "establishing any religion".

Oh dear.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

- The First Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

If citizens are concerned about gay marriage laws, feeling they may negatively impact the ability of churches and private businesses to conduct themselves with freedom, liberty, and autonomy, as their conscience dictates... that has NOTHING to do with "establishing any religion".

It doesn't matter what nonsense citizens believe, it doesn't change the fact that the government isn't allowed to make laws respecting religion. And guess what, nobody is demanding the government force churches and private institutions to wed homosexuals. You literally attacked a strawman. If you want to argue that gays should be allowed to get married but businesses should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they want, fine. But to say gays simply can't get married, end of story, is completely asinine.

No one is telling everyone in the country to BECOME Methodists or Presbyterians, or to SUPPORT Methodists or Presbyterians, or even to just AGREE with any particular religion. YOU just live in a whole fantasy world of equivocation don't you?

That's like saying, "Nobody is telling you to BECOME a Muslim, you just have to abide by Islamic law as defined in the Koran."

This same nonsense is SO tiring.
It's old, it's tiring, and it's boring.
Seriously, try a new method sometime... one that doesn't violate simple logic.

Someone's projecting...

The fact is: many people have morals, ethics, and OPINIONS that have nothing to do with any particular religion, or even with religion at all. Ethical values, moral values, and opinions, have NOTHING to do with "establishing any religion."

If you believe gay marriage is wrong simply because it's unethical, fine. But almost every single person who opposes gay marriage argues that it should be illegal because it goes against what God teaches. This is a problem.

All laws are based on value judgements of SOME KIND. YOU obviously, and clearly, want laws based on YOUR value judgements. So MY value judgements should be summarily dismissed, but YOUR valued judgements are inherently perfect and beautiful because... mmm... I don't know... because they come from YOU?

Morality shouldn't be dictated by the government, only ethics. And I believe we should maximize personal freedom as much as possible while protecting personal liberties. This means things such as theft, rape, murder, etc., should remain illegal because they infringe on other people's freedoms. Getting drunk, having consensual sex with whomever, etc., are not infringing on anybody's liberties.

So the only laws I'm trying to have imposed onto you are those in which you threaten the liberties of other people with few exceptions.

Really, is there some reason you spend so much time here spouting off all the same tired equivocation, troll-worthy polemics, and dishonest argumentation?

Sorry, you're arguing with a mirror. I'm over here.

You really don't have anyone else to play with?

I wake up every morning, neglecting family and loved ones, saying, "Today, I'm going to give Maxwel a brain aneurysm."

Isn't there an atheist forum someplace where people would actually LISTEN to your opinions?

What would that accomplish?

Do you realize nobody here listens to anything you say except other atheists?

I don't dispute the existence of God on this forum unless I'm asked why I don't believe in God - in which case I respond honestly. But I'm not here to proselytize anti-theistic views.

More importantly, you're dismissing my arguments based solely off the fact that I'm an atheist. My argument isn't rooted in religious or non-religious views. As it stands, you can support the right for gays to get married while simultaneously holding onto the notion that homosexuality is a sin. As I explained to 3score, allowing other people to live however they want while being held accountable for their own actions is not the same as endorsing their lifestyle or choices they make.

Do you realize you have no impact here on anything, or anyone?

You suggested I go to an atheist forum and talk to people who already agree with me - which would accomplish nothing. Clearly, you're not thinking of what my interests are - you're just shoveling nonsense at me in the hopes I'll buzz off.

Do you realize you're virtually invisible here, and you might as well be talking to yourself?

I've made a larger impact on this community than you might think, even in the most subtle of ways. From offering advice to people with problems to making people at least think about their position - that's plenty more done than you give credit.

Do you realize you are just wasting your time, and wasting our forum space?

Possibly. Oh well.

Do you not have anything useful, anything productive or meaningful, to do with your time, or with your life?

No, I don't. I neglect my life with the sole purpose of bothering you.

Do you honestly have nothing productive or meaningful to do with your life?

All the meaning to my life is bickering at me right now.

 

[PennEd]

Sure, but the AIDS thing IS more prevalent among homosexuals (health professor said this), because the act has a greater chance of transmitting blood, because of the strain, or something. It is more likely to spread that way, than normal intercourse WHILE IT CAN AND DOES go that way to.


Huh? Would you elaborate? I don't understand.

I believe you said that science proved that incest is bad for society. My 1st point was that homosexuality is bad for society. My second point was that the presumable bad thing science is concerned with regarding incest is the offspring of of incestuous males and females. So tell me how that would be an issue if 2 brothers madly in love with each other, who wanted to get married, would present a scientific problem, since they can't have offspring?

 

[crossnote]

Its only people in love getting married. Its nothing to be scared about.

Precisely. The rampant, paranoid hyperbole in this thread is simply ridiculous. Nobody is on the verge of being oppressed simply because individuals of a differing sexual orientation wish to affiliate themselves with an institution on the basis of equality. Religious objections may be sincerely held, but they hardly constitute a legitimate justification for the current status quo in many US states, which still prohibit SSM.

A purely religious objection to a phenomenon in a legally and politically secular nation is invalid as a legal justification. There's no getting around it. What the majority wants is irrelevant, since minority rights are, and traditionally always have been, a protected and crucial component of fair and just democracy.

I don't drink alcohol. Does this mean other people's drinking is an infringement of my right not to drink alcohol?

If you aren't the one getting married, it's irrelevant who gets married. If you believe people need to be held accountable for their own actions, and if you believe homosexuality will lead people to go to hell, then that's the approach you should take. Let gays get married and be held accountable for whatever the consequences may be.



Fine, then allow government marriage to exist for gays in the same exact way non-Christians are married by the government. I'll actually agree with many Christians to the extent that the government should not be involved with marriage at all - but if it's going to be involved, it needs to treat everyone equally without religious bias.

All are missing the point. It's the definition of marriage that's at stake. A definition around before the constitution...one since time immemorial...How can our judges have the right to redefine that?

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
(Gen 2:21-24)

 

[Lizathrose]

You really don't have anyone else to play with?
Isn't there an atheist forum someplace where people would actually LISTEN to your opinions?
Do you realize nobody here listens to anything you say except other atheists?
Do you realize you have no impact here on anything, or anyone?
Do you realize you're virtually invisible here, and you might as well be talking to yourself?
Do you realize you are just wasting your time, and wasting our forum space?
Do you not have anything useful, anything productive or meaningful, to do with your time, or with your life?
Do you honestly have nothing productive or meaningful to do with your life?

At this point, you're being plainly vitriolic. It's unwarranted and, dare I say, very nearly heinous to rhetorically ask if someone "has anything useful to do" with their lives, or whether they have "anyone else to play with."

 

[Lizathrose]

All are missing the point. It's the definition of marriage that's at stake. A definition around before the constitution...one since time immemorial...How can our judges have the right to redefine that?

A definition is decided by parties with the political authority to choose whether embrace or reject that definition. This, if anything, is an immemorial concept -- not your definition of marriage. Contemporary civilization is replete with ideas and legal frameworks that didn't exist or weren't popular for the vast part of recorded history. Same-sex marriage is just one more example. Nothing more, nothing less. The length of time a given practice or phenomenon exists is irrelevant to the contingent validity of that practice or phenomenon, or the way in which that practice is carried out in this pertinent circumstance.

 

[Percepi]

Well, I'm not American, but I lived in the US for 2 years, and I watch American shows, TV and news, on occasion. So I do keep in touch with what is going on in the USA.

So it seems to me, that when you FORCE someone to bake a cake or make a flower arrangement for an occasion that is against THEIR beliefs, have you not violated the First Admendment??

Technically, this is not a violation of the First Amendment. However, I'll agree with you 100% that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they please with maybe a few possible exceptions.

This isn't reason to keep homosexuals from getting married. I support the right for homosexuals to get married as well as the right for businesses to discriminate against whomever they want. As I said earlier, allowing people to act a certain way is not the same as endorsing their behavior. I don't endorse discrimination from businesses, but I respect their right to do so. At the same time, I have the right to convince others not to use that company and I have the right to promote their competitors.

I just don't see why someone wanting a wedding cake couldn't walk down the street to a different baker, and get it done there. That would be the Canadian way!

Believe it or not, I agree. Supporting the right for homosexuals to get married doesn't necessarily mean I have to support legislation that makes it impossible to discriminate against gays - as long as it's equally legal to discriminate against Christians or people who don't support gay-marriage.

 

[jamie26301]

I believe you said that science proved that incest is bad for society.

I believe it has...


I'm still confused. Incest is not permitted because it narrows the gene pool - like a 50% chance of birth defects. Arguing whether it should be law or not because you should "just know," well that's walking a thin line. To give people the right to exercise their free will is to give also them the right to be idiots, like driving a motorcycle without a helmet.

But in the case of incest, it's not the two who are most affected - it's the unborn child that could result. It could almost be argued that it is a sin against the child if one was produced.

My 1st point was that homosexuality is bad for society.

I was just wanting objective evidence that it is. My point with incest was that it is law not because of religion, but because of public interest. Is there any way that homosexual relationships upset the general public in any way - BESIDES upset religious sentiments?

My second point was that the presumable bad thing science is concerned with regarding incest is the offspring of of incestuous males and females. So tell me how that would be an issue if 2 brothers madly in love with each other would present a scientific problem, since they can't have offspring?

Ah! That is actually a very good question! I'm not sure how to answer that. It would be unlikely to happen, to begin with, I think. But if you are talking about law and order, ideally it applies equally to everyone. Unless the law is drafted in such a way to state that hetersexual incestous relationships are what is a crime.

 

[crossnote]

A definition is decided by parties with the political authority to choose whether embrace or reject that definition. This, if anything, is an immemorial concept -- not your definition of marriage.

Yes, and despots would whole heartedly agree as did the Nazis at Nuremberg.
God's Law protects us from man's tyranny.