We are screwed

[Jo6pak]

Just another step toward gov't oppression of churches, religious organizations, and the individuals that support them.

I don't see that as a problem, If the gov't wanted to oppress churches, the first thing I would do is make them start paying taxes.

There was a lawsuit last year against a baker that did not want to make a cake.

Frivolous lawsuits are nothing new. This SCOTUS decision won't make them any more abundant or any less stupid. DOMA had no bearing on greedy lawyers.


How many same-sex couples are going to be filing lawsuits against churches that won't perform a marriage ceremony for them? That is yet to be seen, but the trends of the past point to a future full of this sort of thing.

How many atheist couple are filing lawsuits against churches now. Could a Baptist file a suit against a catholic church that won't marry them?
Again, frivolous lawsuits need to be dealt with other ways.

It isn't over. There are some who won't be content until they have destroyed all they can destroy of Judeo-Christian morality and those who still support it.

Morality is not constrained or privileged upon only those who worship a certain god in coherence to a certain book. In fact, I argue that if your morality is guided by the fear of damnation in the next life, and not simply doing right because it is the correct and honorable thing to do. It is not morality that guides you afterall, it is simply fear of retribution.

How is it the governments job to decide who can get married anyway. Remember there was a time when certain states banned interracial couples from getting married. And there are still nations that ban inter-faith couples.

It's about freedom and I will always take the side of liberty for all over the fear of offending some.

 

[kwo51]

Lets see was the divorce rate lower before we were free to marry out side our race or sex or religion? You are free to be a mass murder if you like. Do you obey the law because it is right or the thought of going to jail?

 

[oppo]

 

[Jo6pak]

Lets see was the divorce rate lower before we were free to marry out side our race or sex or religion? You are free to be a mass murder if you like. Do you obey the law because it is right or the thought of going to jail?

I'm not sure what the divorce rates are for different race/religion couples. But I would be willing to bet that is isn't much different than "normal?" couples. And with a ~40% failure rate, just exactly what part of Marriage was DOMA defending?

Yes, a person is free to become a mass murderer, but they better be prepared for the consequences when they are caught.
Murder is a crime against humanity. Taking a life deprives the victim of their freedom to live. If you deprive someone else of their life or liberty, you should be prepared to give up your own to settle your debt. I don't remember ever condoning murder or unlawfulness.

And personally, I try to keep my honor intact. But, not because I fear reckoning by some mythical deity somewhere and not because I think I might get caught. I do it simply because it is the right way to live.
And just to be clear, "law" is not always the same as "good" It is always a free man's duty to fight against injustice, regardless of the laws of the land.
To that point, Mr. Snowden comes to mind. Did he break the law? Yes. Did he do the right thing? Yes.

But now we are waaayyy off the DOMA decision:blah:

 

[kwo51]

We have made new laws to conform to a liberal society.Got a joint?

 

[cce1302]

How is it the governments job to decide who can get married anyway. Remember there was a time when certain states banned interracial couples from getting married. And there are still nations that ban inter-faith couples.

It's about freedom and I will always take the side of liberty for all over the fear of offending some.

I never said or implied it was the government's job to decide who can get married. In fact I believe that it would be totally wrong for the government to require churches or ordained pastors to perform a ceremony for anybody they don't want to perform a ceremony for.

I have hope, however, that you do call the lawsuits I mentioned frivolous. I would call them frivolous as well. However, the ACLU is behind it and I don't think it's going away that easy. Once "gay" became a protected class, the majority lost its ability to treat them equally with others. The government has basically decided that some are more equal than others.

You show little understanding of lawsuits if you think that frivolous lawsuits can simply be laughed off. They take time and money to win. And with the ACLU backing lawsuits against churches, more of these frivolous lawsuits will win. I'm sure you know of the Methodist church in New Jersey that refused to allow its building to be used for ceremonies between members of the same sex, and lost the lawsuit brought against it.

Look, I don't have a problem with boys doing things with boys and girls doing things with girls. What I have a problem with is the minority + the government forcing me to call something what it isn't, and forcing me to recognize it as though it were something else.

You bring up race & religion. In the 1960s, they didn't get civil rights laws passed by saying all races are white. They got them through by saying all people have the same rights to eat, assemble, vote, etc.

You seem to find it obvious that Baptists don't want to be called Catholics. Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Yet the extreme homosexual lobby wants the government to force everybody to call what they are doing "marriage."

I thought that George Orwell taught us that simply renaming something does not make it something it is not.
Perhaps the Ministry of Truth is alive and well after all.

 

[kwo51]

Catherine Sablis would be that mouth piece for the truth.

 

[Jo6pak]

@ Kwo51= No, I tried pot a few times years ago. Just made me sleepy, hungry and stupid. But I don't really think that marijuana is any worse than alcohol, and we should treat it the same and at least get some tax money off those dumb enough to smoke it.

@ cce1302= I think we agree on you first point. I am not a religious man, but I will resist any gov't intrusion on a faith's rights to practice within their community. On the other hand, I don't think that churches should be able to be both tax-free and politically active. Like sulfur and water, nothing good happens when religion and politics mix.

I did not mean to imply that I was "laughing off" frivolous lawsuits. I think they are a serious problem and only drag everyone down with them. This goes back to greedy lawyers and dishonorable people, it is not restricted to same-sex couples.

Where we do seem to disagree is the fact that people are defending the term "marriage." To me it doesn't matter if we use the term "marriage" or "civil union" as long as the same rights are transferred along with both. Frankly, I see them as the same thing, regardless of the semantics used. So, I guess maybe we agree on that too.

Would you support "civil union" granting the same rights as a marriage, but just not using the term "marriage"?

 

[kwo51]

I would but not in Gods name.This country was founded on Godly principles and the farther we get away from them the eviler it gets .

 

[Concealed 27]

I would but not in Gods name.This country was founded on Godly principles and the farther we get away from them the eviler it gets .

Amen Brother, I really don't care if they wanna let man take half, or a woman take half your crap.....Concealed 27

 

[ninja man]

here is where i get into trouble. i will try to keep sane about this.

i do not believe in gay marriage. they should not have the same rights as a traditional marriage. and i will try to explain my thoughts in a orderly manner.

1) the voters voted many years ago to not allow gay marriage. this country was supposed to be for the people. instead, they took it out of the voters hands and left it in a courtroom where (dumb) people have been appointed to say what is law or not, based on the sheer fact that it has to be deemed politically correct.

2) why should a gay couple be allowed the same priveledges as a normal couple, when they can not produce children of their own? if we have to go through 9 months of hell (especially the wife) and have to take trips to the hospital multiple times, what makes gay couples thing they can just adopt a child? we have had 9 months of planning, and gone through the lifecycle of childbirth, where they have not.

3) what happens to the human race if it is deemed that gay is ok? we become extinct. it takes a man and a woman to make a child. we were specifically desinged by nature (or god if you are religious) to accomodate the other person of the opposite sex

4) they way that they handle themselves drives me crazy. when was the last time we saw a straight person parade? why do gays have to be so outspoken about it? i dont want to hear of street closures just because a bunch of gay people want to voice their opinion. they should stop clogging the streets. especially when i have to drive in a city where traffic is overflowing because of it. if you are gay, then so be it, but for gods sake, shut the fuck up about it. and do it where you dont bother other people

i hope this doesnt produce a lot of backlash, but until gay couples can conceive a child on their own, they are not considered a family in my book. they have no right to expect the same as a married man and wife. maybe we should start preaching about straight people more. im sure they would love to hear that. all i hear all the time is about gay this and gay that. im at the point that since i have heard so much about it, that it pisses me off. my newfound hatred for gay people is not because they are gay, but because of what they did to achieve their goal. if you are gay, shut the hell up, dont tell me and we wont have a problem.

i will say that i am not politically correct at all. and this is one of the rare times i will get invovled in a political conversation. weather you like or hate my comment, the one thing the goverment cant take away from me is my opinion. at least we have that still. however i guess it goes both ways since gays have their freedom of speech too. i just wish they would excersize that right as often as normal couples.

so waiting for the firestorm.......

 

[kwo51]

Well put.

 

[SilvrSRT10]

here is where i get into trouble. i will try to keep sane about this.

i do not believe in gay marriage. they should not have the same rights as a traditional marriage. and i will try to explain my thoughts in a orderly manner.

2) why should a gay couple be allowed the same priveledges as a normal couple, when they can not produce children of their own? if we have to go through 9 months of hell (especially the wife) and have to take trips to the hospital multiple times, what makes gay couples thing they can just adopt a child? we have had 9 months of planning, and gone through the lifecycle of childbirth, where they have not.

3) what happens to the human race if it is deemed that gay is ok? we become extinct. it takes a man and a woman to make a child. we were specifically desinged by nature (or god if you are religious) to accomodate the other person of the opposite sex

.

I was on another forum and suggested something along these lines and got some backlash.

My idea was let Nature define the marriage. Based on natures intent that it takes a male and a female to reproduce that that is the "true union". No other combination works naturally. (except the worm)

Marriage is just a man made religious ceremony promising fidelity to one another. But I think it should be exclusive to a "true union". Can same sex couples promise fidelity to one another? Sure. I'm just not sure I see it as a marriage in the true sense although they have every right to choose whoever they want to be partners with.

I have no problem with same sex couple shacking up and living a happy life but that is not my definition of a true union based on what nature intended.

Even though a heterosexual couple may decide not to have or just can't have children it is still what nature intended. See, "intended" does not mean absolute. They still have free will to choose. Whereas with same sex couples there is no choice to make. It is an impossibility to have a child naturally.

I am in no way bashing or putting down a person for being attracted to their same sex. I believe everyone is entitled to a happy life. These are just some thoughts I've had on defining marriage.

I'm not forcing these ideas on anyone. Just my way of thinking.

 

[STF]

I just don't think it's any of the governments business what anyone is doing.

Just to play a little devils advocate here... How many gay people are against gun rights and the 2A????

See it's not that I necessarily "support" gay marriage it's just that I think we have WAY more important issues to handle in this country. Gay people getting married doesn't effect me at all.

 

[oppo]

Why is an adopted child less deserving than one raised by it's biological parents? I get and somewhat agree that the benefits of marriage are ultimately to benefit the children but what makes one child more deserving than another? Should I not be able to provide insurance for my kids just because it wasn't my seed that made them?

While I admit that I have issues referring to a homosexual partnership as marriage, I also believe that they have an absolute right to choose who they join their life with and that to say they cannot produce children with each other is a poor argument.

As for extintion, that won't happen. We are already overpopulating this planet as it is and those with a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality will continually remove themselves from the gene pool. Homosexuality is also fairly common in animals, btw.

As far as divorce rates, that is a problem with society in general. People just don't view marriage and divorce the way they used to. It has nothing to do with inter-racial, inter-faith, or homosexual marriages.

 

[STF]

Why is an adopted child less deserving than one raised by it's biological parents? I get and somewhat agree that the benefits of marriage are ultimately to benefit the children but what makes one child more deserving than another? Should I not be able to provide insurance for my kids just because it wasn't my seed that made them?

While I admit that I have issues referring to a homosexual partnership as marriage, I also believe that they have an absolute right to choose who they join their life with and that to say they cannot produce children with each other is a poor argument.

As for extintion, that won't happen. We are already overpopulating this planet as it is and those with a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality will continually remove themselves from the gene pool. Homosexuality is also fairly common in animals, btw.

As far as divorce rates, that is a problem with society in general. People just don't view marriage and divorce the way they used to. It has nothing to do with inter-racial, inter-faith, or homosexual marriages.

I agree with this mostly. I didn't have time to make a proper response. I still don't think it's the governments business.

 

[oppo]

As for the parades, thank goodness we don't have them here, not that I have seen anyway.

 

[STF]

Never been to Austin? :rotflmao:

 

[oppo]

Never been to Austin? :rotflmao:

I try to avoid it. I am close to Ft Worth.

 

[kwo51]

So when will the queer across the street be able to marry his chicken or goat? The government is supposed to be we the people. Cal.prop. was voted in by the people and the SC ruled it unconstitutional. What next will they declare- guns?