Gay Marriage
- Thread starter delldude
- Start date
- Status
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams
BREAKING NEWS: Federal government to recognize same-sex marriages already performed in Utah even though the state put its own recognition on hold, Attorney General Eric Holder says
BREAKING NEWS: Federal government to recognize same-sex marriages already performed in Utah even though the state put its own recognition on hold, Attorney General Eric Holder says
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
I can say the same exact thing about Athiests....Ms Tree said:
They see a teacher wearing a cross or Star of David and cry "proselytization!" (yet a head covering for Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs is OK).
They see the mere mention of Christianity as indoctrination, but it's OK to teach about Buddhism or other faiths, as long as they're non-monotheistic or deist.
The posting of the Ten Commandments at a courthouse is seen as rabid support of one faith over the other, rather than a historical rendition of core principles that all modern law is based on.
A cross at a war memorial is also viewed as promotion of religion, rather than seen an appropriate symbol used to memorialize people of faith (and yet an obelisk is OK, despite it also being an ancient religious symbol)
Most people are smart enough to recognize that the extremists exist in any religion. Most people recognize that Westboro doesn't represent mainstream Christianity any more than the polygamist colonies scattered in Utah and northern Arizona represent the LDS Church.
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Now you know what atheists think?
yoyodyne
Veteran
eolesen said:
Most people are smart enough to recognize that extremist views exist in any opinion, or belief. Most people recognize that Atheists portrayed in the media tend to be the ones that are very butthurt, sensitive about everything, and have an axe to grind, and don't represent mainstream atheism any more than ....
See what I did there?
I'm an atheist, and could care less if you worship Christ or Tezcatlipoca, or if you say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays, or if the Ten Commandments are displayed in a court. I do care however, when you try to impose YOUR religious views, your personal perception of morality, or whatever other "thing" must be true because you believe it; upon my personal rights and freedoms. If I were a woman, I don't want your views regulating my body. If I were gay, I don't want your views deprecating whom and how I should love someone. What a teacher chooses to wear or believe in is of no consequence to me, I do have an issue when said teacher tries to impose his or her beliefs onto my daughter, just as I would imagine you would have an issue if a muslim, or any other non-Christian person were to impose his beliefs onto your Christian children.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
Do you have any examples of a person wearing a religiius symbol a d being prosecuted for wearing?eolesen said:
What is the context of this religious speech prosecution of which you speak. I hwve taken religious studies classes and my nieces have taken them in school now with out any issues.
Ths posting of the 10 commandments is seen as endorsement of religion because it is and the courts have agreed.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Then we probably agree that nobody should be expected to have to accommodate another person's ideology or beliefs at the expense of their own.
It's a historical fact that marriage is a religious institution (despite the modern secularist hijacking of the term), so can you explain what right the non-religious have to impose their views on how it is to be exercised? What right do states even have in defining it, let alone redefining it?
I have no problem with same-sex domestic partnerships or civil unions being recognized and afforded all the same rights that a religious marriage receive, and I also have no problem with the state not recognizing church marriages absent a legal civil union/partnership (the French model). But that's not what the activists want.
Taking it a step further...
Can you explain why a business owner should be forced to put their own views aside, such as the wedding photographer and baker who were both sued for refusing to provide services to gay weddings?
To me, that's no different than a card-carrying PETA member photographer being asked to do professional photographs at a company pig roast. Should the company be able to sue if they're refused service?
If I have puppies listed for sale on Craigslist, and a prospective buyer discloses they intends to kill and skin them for its fur, shouldn't I have the right to refuse to do business with them?
It's a historical fact that marriage is a religious institution (despite the modern secularist hijacking of the term), so can you explain what right the non-religious have to impose their views on how it is to be exercised? What right do states even have in defining it, let alone redefining it?
I have no problem with same-sex domestic partnerships or civil unions being recognized and afforded all the same rights that a religious marriage receive, and I also have no problem with the state not recognizing church marriages absent a legal civil union/partnership (the French model). But that's not what the activists want.
Taking it a step further...
Can you explain why a business owner should be forced to put their own views aside, such as the wedding photographer and baker who were both sued for refusing to provide services to gay weddings?
To me, that's no different than a card-carrying PETA member photographer being asked to do professional photographs at a company pig roast. Should the company be able to sue if they're refused service?
If I have puppies listed for sale on Craigslist, and a prospective buyer discloses they intends to kill and skin them for its fur, shouldn't I have the right to refuse to do business with them?
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
Well first off its a word. There is no trade mark on it so anyine can use the word any way they want. The state has been using the term for quite a while. If you can convince the states to change the terminology go for it.eolesen said:
Why do you think no one has submitted any legislation to change it?
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
You tell me, since you're the great thinker.
One view I've seen is that the activists really just want to force the issue of acceptance of their lifestyle.
There's a perception that having equal rights wouldn't actually happen if they were recognized yet didn't get to use the same name.
I'd like to call the shrimp and pig roast I'm holding for my 13 year old son's birthday a bar mitzvah. They're both a celebration of coming of age, right? Do I have the right to minimize the word?...
Can I market a brown colored drink and call it Coke?
Oh, that's right. Silly me. That would meet the legal definition of infringement. Apparently, it's only cool to infringe on people's beliefs, and not those of a commercial venture.
One view I've seen is that the activists really just want to force the issue of acceptance of their lifestyle.
There's a perception that having equal rights wouldn't actually happen if they were recognized yet didn't get to use the same name.
I'd like to call the shrimp and pig roast I'm holding for my 13 year old son's birthday a bar mitzvah. They're both a celebration of coming of age, right? Do I have the right to minimize the word?...
Can I market a brown colored drink and call it Coke?
Oh, that's right. Silly me. That would meet the legal definition of infringement. Apparently, it's only cool to infringe on people's beliefs, and not those of a commercial venture.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
No idea why no one is proposing legislation. May be its because if the state only issues civil union licenses that the word will be margenalized even more than it is. Seprate is not equal. SCOTUS already ruled on that.eolesen said:
No law saying you cant call it a bar mitzvah. Go for it.
Coke is trademarked. Good luck with that.
Nothing to do with belief and your persecution issues. Marriage is a word that had been woven into our vocabulary. Never mind the fact that the definition of marriage has chanved drastically ovrr the centuries. You are just focusing on the current change you dont like while ignoring the changes whuch you agree with.
The changes will not affect the religious institutions so Im at a loss as to why religion feels it can dictate to the state what it can or cant do.
Kev3188 said:
(CNSNews.com) – Education Secretary Arne Duncan spoke at the “Federal LGBT Youth Summit” on Tuesday by video, stating that his Department was sending a letter to school districts detailing the policies and laws available to ensure that homosexual student groups can form and function on public school campuses. LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-public-schools-gay-clubs-have-equal-right-form-campus#sthash.p9lJKsXJ.dpuf
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
eolesen said:
That's what I love about your arguments. They are usually very transparent and very ignorant of the law.
You always argue with examples of things that you favor. We know you do not want gays to have equal rights. So lets take your example and extend it out to it's logical conclusion.
In your world a business can now refuse service to a homosexual couple. Fine. We will abandon the Civil rights act which guarantees that all businesses must grant service to all persons (with certain limited exceptions). I have just opened up a business and I do not like elderly people so I am not going to provide service to them. My friend has a business and he does not like Asians so they do not get services in his establishment. You see where this is going. Eventually we will get to a category which you value and then we will have an issue. Get enough businesses to deny service to your group and you do not get service.
So it seems you have a choice. Either everyone is entitled to service or we risk having a group or groups denied service. If you are going to make these arguments you need to play them out to the stuff you favor, not just the stuff you agree with to see if it's a good idea. I do not want the KKK to be able to spread their vitriol. How ever if I agree to banning their right to free speech then everyone else's speech is in jeopardy as well. Fourteenth is kind of funny that way.
I'm willing to bet that their are laws that grant you the right to deny service if you know that harm will come to another person or living thing but I am guessing you knew that and were just tossing out a red herring because you knew your argument had no logical support.
- Status
