If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

LOL- the states lost both of those cases- and neither of those cases were about 'extending' rights - but recognizing constitutional rights.

Either way, I am still right.

Same with the issue of child support.

Americans have a right to marry- the states can only deny those rights if the state has a compelling reason.

So, that case supports my position too?

 

[Seawytch]

I just want to say something for the record. I don't agree with hating anyone, I don't hate anyone, and as a Christian I believe that all human beings are valuable, and should be treated with respect and dignity.

So I don't agree with using words like "faggot" or treating homosexuals in a hateful way. I simply believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I believe there's no such thing as "same-sex marriage." Marriage was, is, and always will be the union of a man and a woman, usually (but not always) to start a family.

I firmly believe it is possible to love the person without agreeing with or supporting their actions. Pretty much every Christian I've ever encountered feels that way too. So, hating homosexuals and using hateful language is not Christian… as we are commanded to love others.

One of the reasons I am saying this is because I see the word bigot thrown around so easily. While it might apply to some who disagree with homosexuality… I think it's ignorant (or dishonest) to demonize Christians for merely holding the belief that homosexuality is a sin. So when you throw around derogatory labels, I think it reflects more on the person doing that than anyone else.

In fact, often the people who use that word against those who don't agree with homosexuality are themselves bigots… because many of the people who use that word against Christians are utterly intolerant of any other views, and hateful, while throwing around the word that by definition applies to themselves.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Were people who used the Bible to justify segregation and anti miscegenation bigots?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think you completely missed my point. I'm not sure what you thought I was saying, but my view is that marriage has an actual definition… an objectively true definition that is timeless, it doesn't change. I do understand how some people can't wrap their minds around that, especially if you're an atheist.

Marriage: a contract.

Right?

If you are telling me that the definition of marriage is a bond between one man and one woman, I have a widely distributed and regularly used ancient religions document of historical significance that disagrees with you.

 

[koshergrl]

I just want to say something for the record. I don't agree with hating anyone, I don't hate anyone, and as a Christian I believe that all human beings are valuable, and should be treated with respect and dignity.

So I don't agree with using words like "faggot" or treating homosexuals in a hateful way. I simply believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I believe there's no such thing as "same-sex marriage." Marriage was, is, and always will be the union of a man and a woman, usually (but not always) to start a family.

I firmly believe it is possible to love the person without agreeing with or supporting their actions. Pretty much every Christian I've ever encountered feels that way too. So, hating homosexuals and using hateful language is not Christian… as we are commanded to love others.

One of the reasons I am saying this is because I see the word bigot thrown around so easily. While it might apply to some who disagree with homosexuality… I think it's ignorant (or dishonest) to demonize Christians for merely holding the belief that homosexuality is a sin. So when you throw around derogatory labels, I think it reflects more on the person doing that than anyone else.

In fact, often the people who use that word against those who don't agree with homosexuality are themselves bigots… because many of the people who use that word against Christians are utterly intolerant of any other views, and hateful, while throwing around the word that by definition applies to themselves.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Were people who used the Bible to justify segregation and anti miscegenation bigots?

Are the people who are pulling down the pictures of white people at Harvard bigots?

Yup. They are.

Are all academics bigots?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I just want to say something for the record. I don't agree with hating anyone, I don't hate anyone, and as a Christian I believe that all human beings are valuable, and should be treated with respect and dignity.

So I don't agree with using words like "faggot" or treating homosexuals in a hateful way. I simply believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I believe there's no such thing as "same-sex marriage." Marriage was, is, and always will be the union of a man and a woman, usually (but not always) to start a family.

I firmly believe it is possible to love the person without agreeing with or supporting their actions. Pretty much every Christian I've ever encountered feels that way too. So, hating homosexuals and using hateful language is not Christian… as we are commanded to love others.

One of the reasons I am saying this is because I see the word bigot thrown around so easily. While it might apply to some who disagree with homosexuality… I think it's ignorant (or dishonest) to demonize Christians for merely holding the belief that homosexuality is a sin. So when you throw around derogatory labels, I think it reflects more on the person doing that than anyone else.

In fact, often the people who use that word against those who don't agree with homosexuality are themselves bigots… because many of the people who use that word against Christians are utterly intolerant of any other views, and hateful, while throwing around the word that by definition applies to themselves.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Were people who used the Bible to justify segregation and anti miscegenation bigots?

And I think I have proved myself to be non-bigoted toward homosexuals but....

fuck all y'all. I am using the word "faggot" and there is nothing you can say or do to stop me, goddammit. You bunch of faggots!!!

 

[koshergrl]

I just want to say something for the record. I don't agree with hating anyone, I don't hate anyone, and as a Christian I believe that all human beings are valuable, and should be treated with respect and dignity.

So I don't agree with using words like "faggot" or treating homosexuals in a hateful way. I simply believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I believe there's no such thing as "same-sex marriage." Marriage was, is, and always will be the union of a man and a woman, usually (but not always) to start a family.

I firmly believe it is possible to love the person without agreeing with or supporting their actions. Pretty much every Christian I've ever encountered feels that way too. So, hating homosexuals and using hateful language is not Christian… as we are commanded to love others.

One of the reasons I am saying this is because I see the word bigot thrown around so easily. While it might apply to some who disagree with homosexuality… I think it's ignorant (or dishonest) to demonize Christians for merely holding the belief that homosexuality is a sin. So when you throw around derogatory labels, I think it reflects more on the person doing that than anyone else.

In fact, often the people who use that word against those who don't agree with homosexuality are themselves bigots… because many of the people who use that word against Christians are utterly intolerant of any other views, and hateful, while throwing around the word that by definition applies to themselves.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Were people who used the Bible to justify segregation and anti miscegenation bigots?

And I think I have proved myself to be non-bigoted toward homosexuals but....

fuck all y'all. I am using the word "faggot" and there is nothing you can say or do to stop me, goddammit. You bunch of faggots!!!

Faggots and sociopaths.

 

[buttercup]

Were people who used the Bible to justify segregation and anti miscegenation bigots?

If they were hateful and racist, then yes, of course they were bigots. But their view is completely unbiblical, and demonstrably so. They were simply espousing their own personal opinion, and trying to use the Bible to do so, but that doesn't make it biblical.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Faggots and sociopaths.

Faggots are not sociopaths.


They're faggots.

 

[buttercup]

I think you completely missed my point. I'm not sure what you thought I was saying, but my view is that marriage has an actual definition… an objectively true definition that is timeless, it doesn't change. I do understand how some people can't wrap their minds around that, especially if you're an atheist.

Marriage: a contract.

Right?

If you are telling me that the definition of marriage is a bond between one man and one woman, I have a widely distributed and regularly used ancient religions document of historical significance that disagrees with you.

Marriage is more than just a contract. I don't know what particular documents you have in mind, but mere disagreement on something does not mean that there isn't an actual truth.

 

[Pop23]

The point is almost always to attack the legality of gay marriage rather than any sincere concern for a father wanting to be able to marry his daughter.

I know, and it is total bullshit. I don't think Pop23 is making that argument.

Yes- I can think of reasons why the State could have compelling interests to prevent the legal marriage of between more than two people- would they hold up in court? No idea.

What would be the compelling reason? Why wouldn't such an arrangement hold up in Court? Courts deal with multiple parties all the time. How would it be any different?

The courts have already expressed support for the idea that there are valid compelling state reasons to prevent incestuous marriages- such as say a father marrying his daughter- but I don't think that there is much of a compelling argument there for first cousins.

What compelling interest in stopping a father marrying a daughter?

If a daughter is of age, and has the capacity to consent, there should be no barrier. It's disgusting to me, but so is shoving my cock up another man's ass hole. Either way, who am I to deny them?


It goes back to that selfishness thing. I want liberty for all. It goes against my principles to deny a father from marrying his consenting adult daughter.

What if dad only wanted to marry daughter so she could receive spousal benefits from his pension? Which then helps his Grand Children. The State, prior to Obergfell could deny this because they must deny all.

The problem is that now, the Compelling State Intetest would not apply to a Father Son or two brothers. There is no threat of offspring with genetic issues

But how do you allow the boys to benifit, and not, say brother, sister?

By denying those that can’t have offspring, because another group can?

We’ve created a paradox. Without a damn way to stop it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We’ve created a paradox. Without a damn way to stop it.

Why do we need to?

If marriage is a contract (which does not require government involvement to make), marriage can be between any consenting adults. It can't go beyond what a contract can offer.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Let me ask you this, so, now we are at the point where bakers (or any business) has to concede their personal values to accommodate the wishes of someone else. How far of a stretch is it to envision that, if a business refuses to buy supplies from a company, because that company supports things that go against their values.

I've got news for you . You are talking about an entirely different matter. It is a false equivalency logical fallacy. It is one thing to refuse to serve someone who comes into your business. It is quite another thing to boycott a business. That happens all of the time and it is legal. It is idiotic to think that you can be told who to patronize.

What I mean is, let's say the Colorado baker needs to buy 1000lbs of flour. A flour mill comes to him and says they would like to sell him flour but the baker, having read a profile of the flour company, knew that the owners were gay, and used some of their proceeds to support gay rights, so the baker says that he is sorry but he can't purchase flour from them because his religion doesn't allow him to knowingly conduct business with people who's lifestyle goes against his religious values.

Now, do the owners of the flour company have a case against the baker, because they feel he is not purchasing from them based on their lifestyle?

Maybe I'm wrong, but, seems like that scenario would fall right in line with what is going on with this subject.

Or are you saying that a baker cannot refuse to do business with a patron of his store, but can refuse to do business with a supplier based on the same criteria? I don't know, seems pretty sketchy to me. I just feel if you concede to the gay couple, eventually, the way things ate going, the baker will eventually also have to concede to the supplier....and then he has lost control of his business.

I believe that we have been all through this already.....yes that is what I'm saying

Ok, so discrimination is ok against the supplier, but not the customer. Got it.

 

[Pop23]

We’ve created a paradox. Without a damn way to stop it.

Why do we need to?

If marriage is a contract (which does not require government involvement to make), marriage can be between any consenting adults. It can't go beyond what a contract can offer.

Exactly, the Government needs to get the hell out of it.

 

[Syriusly]

So stop being a coward- and spell out whatever half ass argument you want me to discuss.

Here:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

j

Neither of those are arguments.

Those are questions created out of straw and stuffed into old clothes.

Dimwit, they are the argument that you used in support of same sex marriage. Calling them a strawman would be calling yourself dishonest.

Oh, you are a coward, you used the "compelling state interest" argument when arguing in favor of Same Sex marriage, so to claim it's strawman, or that you don't understand, is an act of a COWARD.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Okay- I will take pity on you- since you seem unable to actually able to make an argument- and I will make your argument for you- and if you agree that is what you mean- I will debate you on it:

Pop's argument: Obergefell created a new standard for marriage by declaring that if States cannot provide a compelling state interest in a law that prohibits marriage, that law is unconsitutional.

Is that the argument you are trying to make Poppy?

You have two questions on the table that you have yet to answer. Answer those first and we can move forward.

They are:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I tried to put an argument forward for us to debate- since you refuse to- you just keep dancing with that straw man- if this is not your argument:


Pop's argument: Obergefell created a new standard for marriage by declaring that if States cannot provide a compelling state interest in a law that prohibits marriage, that law is unconsitutional.

Then what is your argument Pop?

 

[Seawytch]

Were people who used the Bible to justify segregation and anti miscegenation bigots?

If they were hateful and racist, then yes, of course they were bigots. But their view is completely unbiblical, and demonstrably so. They were simply espousing their own personal opinion, and trying to use the Bible to do so, but that doesn't make it biblical.

The racist bigots have bible verses too and they feel just as strongly about them as the anti gay bigots do.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me ask you this, so, now we are at the point where bakers (or any business) has to concede their personal values to accommodate the wishes of someone else. How far of a stretch is it to envision that, if a business refuses to buy supplies from a company, because that company supports things that go against their values.

I've got news for you . You are talking about an entirely different matter. It is a false equivalency logical fallacy. It is one thing to refuse to serve someone who comes into your business. It is quite another thing to boycott a business. That happens all of the time and it is legal. It is idiotic to think that you can be told who to patronize.

What I mean is, let's say the Colorado baker needs to buy 1000lbs of flour. A flour mill comes to him and says they would like to sell him flour but the baker, having read a profile of the flour company, knew that the owners were gay, and used some of their proceeds to support gay rights, so the baker says that he is sorry but he can't purchase flour from them because his religion doesn't allow him to knowingly conduct business with people who's lifestyle goes against his religious values.

Now, do the owners of the flour company have a case against the baker, because they feel he is not purchasing from them based on their lifestyle?

Maybe I'm wrong, but, seems like that scenario would fall right in line with what is going on with this subject.

Or are you saying that a baker cannot refuse to do business with a patron of his store, but can refuse to do business with a supplier based on the same criteria? I don't know, seems pretty sketchy to me. I just feel if you concede to the gay couple, eventually, the way things ate going, the baker will eventually also have to concede to the supplier....and then he has lost control of his business.

I believe that we have been all through this already.....yes that is what I'm saying

Ok, so discrimination is ok against the supplier, but not the customer. Got it.

Yeah- according to the law- exactly.

 

[Syriusly]

No- Obergefell did not.

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

Coward. Say and do are two completely different concepts.

We have established you understand the concept of the State Compelling Interest. So simply answer the question:



"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I will gladly debate you on what Obergefell did and did not say- about marriage and procreation- but since you dance like Fred Astaire doing coke- I am not going to debate some vague ass comment.

You make your point- one or two sentences- and I will debate it.

Otherwise I will just laugh at you dancing with your strawman

The argument is not what it says, it's the effect it has on the law.

Prior to Obergfell, you could easily make the Compelling State interest argument, and answering these would be a piece of cake:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

After Obergfell, the answers are not easy, hell they're impossible to answer and not admit the cause is Obergfell

So what were those compelling arguments before Obergefell?

Playing Coy now? Ain't you cute.

Supply the answers to the questions asked first, then we can work backwards if you want. And quit your damn running, it's cowardly...

LOL- you are the one too cowardly to actually make an argument.

Are you scared because you know you have no argument to make?

 

[Syriusly]

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. .

Polygamists have had for decades- the right to challenge their case in court- Obergefell sets no precedent allowing them or those who want to marry their brother to marry- or go to court to argue that they should be able to.

Oh, I agree.

BUT until Obergefell, they had no precedent from the SCOTUS analyzing state marriage laws for a compelling state interest in denying a non-traditional marriage.

Now they do.

And, the same reasoning applies. And, I am glad the Court did extend marriage to same-sex couples.

My only complaint is their politically-motivated, statist reach-around method of getting there, when “marriage is a contract” would have taken care of ALL that shit and left government out of the fucking loop.

YEP. But they want a fairy tale that simply does not exist and they are too damn vain to admit it.

We are not going to talk about Christians at the moment.

Sure

"neither of those Christians or non Christians can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Better

Not sure why you want the state to prevent Christians from marrying non-Christians.

 

[koshergrl]

Faggots and sociopaths.

Faggots are not sociopaths.


They're faggots.

They're faggots and sociopaths. Mostly. Not all. But mostly.

I've never met a sane one.

 

[buttercup]

Were people who used the Bible to justify segregation and anti miscegenation bigots?

If they were hateful and racist, then yes, of course they were bigots. But their view is completely unbiblical, and demonstrably so. They were simply espousing their own personal opinion, and trying to use the Bible to do so, but that doesn't make it biblical.

The racist bigots have bible verses too and they feel just as strongly about them as the anti gay bigots do.

Racism is completely antithetical to Christianity. It doesn't matter if they try to use the Bible to justify their racism… It is very easy to disprove, and anyone who knows God knows that God does not care about skin color or a person's physical appearance…God cares about our heart.

Homosexuality, on the other hand is clearly unbiblical. So to try to equate racists with Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin shows a profound lack of understanding, or ignorance.