The Supreme Court And Redefining Marriage

[fm93]

I, as a police officer, "defended" the gay rights float in our town's "community days" parade. Does THAT count? Did I "show them love"?

A very rudimentary form, but yes. While others were still spewing green at them, you protected them from people who might've tried to hurt them.

OK, I did.

So what are you arguing about? As shown by your anecdote about your lesbian atheist co-worker, you can disagree with people while still making it clear to them that you love them. That's all I've been trying to convey in this thread. I've been posting here specifically because other Christians seem to think that merely telling gay people "I believe homosexual acts are sinful" gets them branded as unloving and hateful. But your own life experience disproves that and supports my point.

The 'woman caught in adultery' is a really really bad example. Perhaps you can try another.

You're the master of misinformed posts, particularly when it comes to dabbling in the Bible.

I'll take the rest seriously when you actually seriously interact with what I say, not just irrelevantly snipe at a few snippets.

[Abigail]

Basically I would say that because the interests of the state as a whole, with respect to discrimination, has been determined to be of more importance than the beliefs of certain segments of the population. Discrimination based on personal beliefs in the public square is conducive to division and strife. Its no different than racism wherein whites would set up a business in accordance with their racists beliefs.

As long as the person running the business does not discriminate between persons when it comes to dispensing the service he does offer then he has not discriminated. For instance a woman's fashion outlet is not discriminating against men because they do not offer men's clothes. They only discriminate if they refuse to sell what they do have to men. So if a company makes cakes specifically designed for heterosexual weddings (male/female combo mannequins) then they have not discriminated against gay people as long as gay people are not prevented from buying the heterosexual cakes. I do not see how this can parallel with racism. How does a person set up a racist business - unless you are suggesting people should not be able to have salons for, say, afro-American hairstyles because that is clearly targeting one racial group. Or that people should not be allowed to set up, say, French breakfast cafes because that would be discriminatory against the Englishman who might prefer a full English breakfast to a croissant. I am not sure many would agree with you.

[Abigail]

A very rudimentary form, but yes.

Yeah, going by the fm93 scale of political correctness which down-grades all Christian actions to 'rudimentary' shows of love.

[Cow Poke]

A very rudimentary form, but yes.

Actually, no - I was ordered by my Chief to do it. It was purely out of a sense of duty.

[Cow Poke]

Basically I would say that because the interests of the state as a whole, with respect to discrimination, has been determined to be of more importance than the beliefs of certain segments of the population. Discrimination based on personal beliefs in the public square is conducive to division and strife. Its no different than racism wherein whites would set up a business in accordance with their racists beliefs.

So, you agree that racebatiers like Al Sharpton need to be locked up and the key thrown in the deepest sea, yes?

[Mountain Man]

Gays are a generally miserable lot. Homosexuality and deep-seated psychological problems go hand in hand (for obvious reasons), and it is extremely rare to come across someone who is gay and genuinely happy and satisfied with his life. They thought that pushing for broader social acceptance would bring them happiness, but it didn't. They thought that pushing for broader legal acceptance would bring them happiness, but it didn't. So they looked around and saw all these happy, married, heterosexual couples and thought, "Ah ha! So that's the secret! If only we could marry. Then we would truly be happy!" And so the push over the past several years has been the actions of people desperate to escape the misery of their existence, thinking that happiness, real, lasting happiness, is just a court decision away. And I'm sure they're happy today, or at least they think they are. The problem, of course, is that you can't run away from yourself, and they'll find, to their increasing frustration, that they're right back at the same, miserable condition they were decades ago when they began this crusade. And so they'll set their sights on the next target, and the whole thing will start over again.

There's no end to it because there is no magical solution that will bring happiness to homosexuals.

I mean, what the hell? I struggle to even begin to describe how irrational, presumptuous and insulting that is. The poster, whom I refuse to name here, is shamelessly engaging in contrived psychoanalysis--acting as if he can read people's minds and "tell" that a majority of them (hence the "generally") are filled with internal frustration and misery, or that they have deep-seated psychological problems. Or being able to predict the future and just "know" that marriages won't bring them lasting happiness. There's simply no way of knowing that, at least not at the moment. Besides, the evidence that already exists indicates that marriages can bring much lasting joy to people, so if anything, the future is likely to show that marriages WILL bring gay couples joy as well.

And again, that's what I mean by "treat them as people, not as issues." Besides that abominable screed, the nameless poster has also spread excrement about studies purportedly showing that children are more likely to suffer harm under gay parents. Never mind that most, if not all, of those studies have been shown to be flawed, and that other studies have come to the opposite conclusion. Essentially telling someone "You can't be a good parent, because some other people who share with you this one characteristic of your brain being wired to feel attraction only to people of the same sex weren't good parents" does not send the impression that you love that person. Love would involve directly getting to know him/her on a personal level, not viewing him/her as a statistic.

Since you won't name me, I'll proudly name myself. For the record, this wasn't an original thought but the sentiments of a poster on another message board, but I repeated the gist of the commentary (posted, by the way, by a professional counselor and therapist who has worked with homosexuals) because I see nothing objectionable or counterfactual in what was said. A number of studies done over the years have found that homosexuals are disproportionately more likely than heterosexuals to be depressed, to struggle with addictions, to engage in risky and self-destructive behavior, are more likely to commit suicide, and so on. Lately, of course, this is increasingly blamed on "homophobia" which disingenuously makes it an external problem rather than an inherent part of the homosexual condition. But the facts are there, and they can not be ignored: gays are a generally miserable lot.

But since they are increasingly blaming external factors for their unhappiness, it only makes sense that they would look for an external solution, but it's basically just kicking the can down the road. Eventually they're not going to be able to kick the can any further, they're going to get everything they want -- or at least everything they think they want -- and they're going to find, to their horror and frustration, that they're just as unhappy as ever, and they'll have nothing left to blame it on. Then what?

As for children suffering harm when raised by same sex couples, this, too, is a documented fact. Like their parents, they are more prone to depression and feelings of inadequacy. But that aside, I think the most damning fact is that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to be accepting of homosexuality or to become homosexual themselves -- and this is a fun one to bring up because homosexual advocates will stare at you blankly and say, "Yeah? So?" What it says to me is that children raised by homosexuals have a malfunctioning moral compass which is sure to have a negative long-term societal impact.

And you say that we should treat homosexuals like people instead of statistics? Well I have a statistic for you: 100% of practicing homosexuals are living in sin. And how does the Bible say we should treat sinners? It says to love them, of course, but what does that really mean? When Jesus called out sinners and told them to repent or face the wrath of God, was he being unloving? We do no right to coddle sinners and tell them, "There there, what you're doing isn't so bad."

The mature adults who wish to marry other consenting mature adults after this ruling obviously aren't in support of pedophilia and would likely severely condemn it. So dropping the dumb comparisons to pedophilia would be a nice start.

Tell me something: morally speaking, how are homosexuality and pedophilia different? Homosexuals never questioned the morality of their actions; theirs was a legal hurdle, not a moral one. How is this any different than pedophiles?

Better question: When pedophiles start championing for the acceptance of pedophilia using the exact same arguments the homosexuals used ("love will win" and all that other BS), are you going to hypocritically oppose pedophilia, or are you going to swallow your disgust and stand by the pedophiles?

And speaking of children raised by homosexuals, do you think they'll be more or less likely to support the "rights" of pedophiles? Remember what I said about a malfunctioning moral compass and the negative long-term consequences for society?

[Starlight]

You get kudos from typewriter apes.

If in doubt, generically insult other posters in this forum...

Like I said, you understand "separation of church and state"?

I know what it is. I think you'd have to add a few more premises to get from the general notion of church and state to your very specific proposal.

Look stupid....you want all these people to have the same LEGAL rights, correct? Fine. That's what "civil unions for all" would mean.

We have marriage for all. So everyone's got the same legal rights, so we're done. And the churches have religious freedom to do whatever, so they can make up their own religious term for some special sort of religious ceremony if they want. So in all the meaningful ways we've already achieved all the things you're proposing. The only difference is the labels used. You're wanting to move the labels around. I don't think there's going to be widespread social support for gratuitous relabeling of things unless you can come up with a compelling argument for it.

the origins of "marriage" in that sense come from a time when church and state were for all intents and purpose joined,

Not at all. See my discussion with Jedidiah: For pretty much the first millennia of Christianity, the church had little to no interest in the state institution of marriage. And, as I pointed out to you at the beginning of this discussion, people in our society have always been perfectly happy to use the English word 'marriage' to describe marriages between atheists and marriages between foreigners in other countries who had other religious beliefs, so the English word marriage has never been inextricably linked with the Christian Church.

The problem with that, stupid....

This is your final warning: Politen up or no further discussion will occur.

[Cow Poke]

If in doubt, generically insult other posters in this forum...

Yo momma dresses you funny.

[Abigail]

And the churches have religious freedom to do whatever, so they can make up their own religious term for some special sort of religious ceremony if they want.

If anyone is in any doubt about the true nature of the battle, which is to usurp Christianity, this is it.

[Jedidiah]

What motivation is there though for the State to get out of the marriage game? That religious people don't like gay people getting married? That's not really going to fly as a widely acceptable motivation for a significant social change.

This is not a new idea. It has been discussed for some years. Before there was even a guess that judicial activism would infect the supreme court.

[KingsGambit]

How does a person set up a racist business - unless you are suggesting people should not be able to have salons for, say, afro-American hairstyles because that is clearly targeting one racial group.

By refusing to serve people of a given race.

[rogue06]

Yup -- so much for "protesting". In so many cases, it just exposed the protestors for the idiots they were. Like the "right to life" morons who were shouting "hail Satan" at the Texas Capitol when Wendy was trying to defeat the pro-lifers.

I figure if that hadn't been verified by numerous eyewitnesses and captured on tape it would have been dismissed as too unlikely to be true with the reasoning who would be that stupid to have engaged in such obviously counter-productive behavior. Sort of like deliberately shooting yourself in the foot while it is still firmly wedge in your mouth.

[Abigail]

By refusing to serve people of a given race.

Yeah and no one is suggesting that tho it keeps being brought up.

[rogue06]

Yo momma dresses you funny.

And wears combat boots!





mickey isn't still around to fly off the handle over that one is he?

[KingsGambit]

Yeah and no one is suggesting that tho it keeps being brought up.

There was an extensive history of it several decades ago; I doubt it would fly today though.