Jesus “tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”

[PratchettFan]

Permitting SSM does not force her to do anything. Public Accommodation laws do that. Two entirely different things.

I'm sorry, did you really mean to dodge the issue?.....

Not dodging at all. If you consider a PA law to be unfair, then you should address the PA law. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether US citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law.

and that has nothing to do with whether laws authorizing SSM force those not getting married to do anything......as pointed out, in the case of both the florist and the baker, the law authorizing SSM did in fact require them to do something.....thus, the claim that it didn't falls short of truth.....

There is absolutely nothing in any SSM law which authorizes any such thing. Show me one from any state which does.

 

[BluePhantom]

Permitting SSM does not force her to do anything. Public Accommodation laws do that. Two entirely different things.

I'm sorry, did you really mean to dodge the issue?.....

Not dodging at all. If you consider a PA law to be unfair, then you should address the PA law. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether US citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law.

and that has nothing to do with whether laws authorizing SSM force those not getting married to do anything......as pointed out, in the case of both the florist and the baker, the law authorizing SSM did in fact require them to do something.....thus, the claim that it didn't falls short of truth.....

There is absolutely nothing in any SSM law which authorizes any such thing. Show me one from any state which does.

I am watching this debate with interest. I keep wanting to jump in but you are doing perfectly fine on your own. You keep saying everything I would say so I am just shutting up and letting you run the football.

 

[Treeshepherd]

“It is possible to have deep and passionately-held convictions without seeking to have those convictions imposed by the State on fellow citizens who do not share them”.

a couple of points;

1. The give unto Caesar what is Caesar's verse is one of the first historical examples of the concept of separation of church and state. Really all throughout the Gospels you find consistent examples of Jesus rejecting worldly power.

2. There have been 150,000 gay marriages in the US. What is the US population now? 325 million? In other words, gay marriage is a gigantic divisive issue that is really only relevant for a miniscule percentage of the population.

 

[Votto]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

Bigoted?

Is it bigoted to oppose sexual deviancy? In fact, does sexual deviance exist?

The fact that the state recognizes marriage at all is a mystery to me. Why should the state care at all? Why should they be involved at all? What test did I take to earn a marriage license?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

Bigoted?

Is it bigoted to oppose sexual deviancy? In fact, does sexual deviance exist?

The fact that the state recognizes marriage at all is a mystery to me. Why should the state care at all? Why should they be involved at all? What test did I take to earn a marriage license?

Marriage confers some 1400 economic, tax, and legal rights adjustments. Since the married couple's status is legally different, the state has the right to define what a marriage is. They shouldn't, but so long as these rights go with marriage, so does the state's right to define it.

 

[Votto]

“It is possible to have deep and passionately-held convictions without seeking to have those convictions imposed by the State on fellow citizens who do not share them”.

a couple of points;

1. The give unto Caesar what is Caesar's verse is one of the first historical examples of the concept of separation of church and state. Really all throughout the Gospels you find consistent examples of Jesus rejecting worldly power.

2. There have been 150,000 gay marriages in the US. What is the US population now? 325 million? In other words, gay marriage is a gigantic divisive issue that is really only relevant for a miniscule percentage of the population.

Jesus consistently said that his kingdom was not of this world, yet men like Constantine defied his edict over the years, which is why horrible events like the Crusades and Inquisitions stain the name of Christ to this day.

Really before Jesus man tried to merge the state and religion together. Religion was nothing more than a way to control the masses. Man once made us believe that he was a god, then when that got old he convinced us that he spoke for God, and when that got old man convinced us that there is no God, thus making himself the ultimate authority. Looking at the world today it looks like we are headed in reverse with the rise if Islam, for it is Islam who forbids separation of church and state. They must all live by Sharia law.

 

[Votto]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

Bigoted?

Is it bigoted to oppose sexual deviancy? In fact, does sexual deviance exist?

The fact that the state recognizes marriage at all is a mystery to me. Why should the state care at all? Why should they be involved at all? What test did I take to earn a marriage license?

Marriage confers some 1400 economic, tax, and legal rights adjustments. Since the married couple's status is legally different, the state has the right to define what a marriage is. They shouldn't, but so long as these rights go with marriage, so does the state's right to define it.

So at least you acknowledge that the state has no business in our sex lives.

So people like you are OK with the state being bigoted towards single people or even polygamists? Where is the outrage I wonder?

Oh, that's right, they don't have the wealthy interest groups to buy off political leaders

 

[Votto]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

Bigoted?

Is it bigoted to oppose sexual deviancy? In fact, does sexual deviance exist?

The fact that the state recognizes marriage at all is a mystery to me. Why should the state care at all? Why should they be involved at all? What test did I take to earn a marriage license?

Marriage confers some 1400 economic, tax, and legal rights adjustments. Since the married couple's status is legally different, the state has the right to define what a marriage is. They shouldn't, but so long as these rights go with marriage, so does the state's right to define it.

You still did not answer the question.

Does sexual deviancy exist in your view? If so, what kind?

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

Bigoted?

Is it bigoted to oppose sexual deviancy? In fact, does sexual deviance exist?

The fact that the state recognizes marriage at all is a mystery to me. Why should the state care at all? Why should they be involved at all? What test did I take to earn a marriage license?

Marriage confers some 1400 economic, tax, and legal rights adjustments. Since the married couple's status is legally different, the state has the right to define what a marriage is. They shouldn't, but so long as these rights go with marriage, so does the state's right to define it.

You still did not answer the question.

Does sexual deviancy exist in your view? If so, what kind?

Define what you mean by deviancy.

 

[sealybobo]

“It is possible to have deep and passionately-held convictions without seeking to have those convictions imposed by the State on fellow citizens who do not share them”.

Fr Iggy O Donovan calls for Yes vote in marriage referendum

We are such a young uneducated unevolved primitive species only beginning to understand who we are. In 100 years it'll be no buggy to be gay. Maybe not in the middle east where religion is the state. Maybe not in the bible belt either. But everywhere else.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

Bigoted?

Is it bigoted to oppose sexual deviancy? In fact, does sexual deviance exist?

The fact that the state recognizes marriage at all is a mystery to me. Why should the state care at all? Why should they be involved at all? What test did I take to earn a marriage license?

Marriage confers some 1400 economic, tax, and legal rights adjustments. Since the married couple's status is legally different, the state has the right to define what a marriage is. They shouldn't, but so long as these rights go with marriage, so does the state's right to define it.

You still did not answer the question.

Does sexual deviancy exist in your view? If so, what kind?

Define what you mean by deviancy.

I'd say the guy on 50 shades of grey was deviant.

 

[PratchettFan]

Bigoted beliefs don't have to be respected in law. Didn't compromise on interracial marriage or school segregation, so why should we with gay marriage?

Bigoted?

Is it bigoted to oppose sexual deviancy? In fact, does sexual deviance exist?

The fact that the state recognizes marriage at all is a mystery to me. Why should the state care at all? Why should they be involved at all? What test did I take to earn a marriage license?

Marriage confers some 1400 economic, tax, and legal rights adjustments. Since the married couple's status is legally different, the state has the right to define what a marriage is. They shouldn't, but so long as these rights go with marriage, so does the state's right to define it.

You still did not answer the question.

Does sexual deviancy exist in your view? If so, what kind?

Define what you mean by deviancy.

I'd say the guy on 50 shades of grey was deviant.

Didn't see it or read the book. I'm looking for a definition, not an example. How do answer a question is your don't know what the word means?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

“It is possible to have deep and passionately-held convictions without seeking to have those convictions imposed by the State on fellow citizens who do not share them”.

Fr Iggy O Donovan calls for Yes vote in marriage referendum

We are such a young uneducated unevolved primitive species only beginning to understand who we are. In 100 years it'll be no buggy to be gay. Maybe not in the middle east where religion is the state. Maybe not in the bible belt either. But everywhere else.

Speak for yourself, I'm not from here. I'm just visiting this f'd up planet.

 

[sealybobo]

Bigoted?

Is it bigoted to oppose sexual deviancy? In fact, does sexual deviance exist?

The fact that the state recognizes marriage at all is a mystery to me. Why should the state care at all? Why should they be involved at all? What test did I take to earn a marriage license?

Marriage confers some 1400 economic, tax, and legal rights adjustments. Since the married couple's status is legally different, the state has the right to define what a marriage is. They shouldn't, but so long as these rights go with marriage, so does the state's right to define it.

You still did not answer the question.

Does sexual deviancy exist in your view? If so, what kind?

Define what you mean by deviancy.

I'd say the guy on 50 shades of grey was deviant.

Didn't see it or read the book. I'm looking for a definition, not an example. How do answer a question is your don't know what the word means?

What is the color of jealousy?

 

[sealybobo]

“It is possible to have deep and passionately-held convictions without seeking to have those convictions imposed by the State on fellow citizens who do not share them”.

Fr Iggy O Donovan calls for Yes vote in marriage referendum

We are such a young uneducated unevolved primitive species only beginning to understand who we are. In 100 years it'll be no buggy to be gay. Maybe not in the middle east where religion is the state. Maybe not in the bible belt either. But everywhere else.

Speak for yourself, I'm not from here. I'm just visiting this f'd up planet.

I can tell by your posts.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Permitting SSM does not force her to do anything. Public Accommodation laws do that. Two entirely different things.

I'm sorry, did you really mean to dodge the issue?.....

Not dodging at all. If you consider a PA law to be unfair, then you should address the PA law. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether US citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law.

and that has nothing to do with whether laws authorizing SSM force those not getting married to do anything......as pointed out, in the case of both the florist and the baker, the law authorizing SSM did in fact require them to do something.....thus, the claim that it didn't falls short of truth.....

There is absolutely nothing in any SSM law which authorizes any such thing. Show me one from any state which does.

oh come on....do you think you can win this argument by just pretending you don't see it?.......did we have bakers and florists and photographers being threatened with law suits for not providing services for gay weddings before states began allowing gay weddings?.....if allowing gay weddings permits law suits against those who don't want to provide services for gay weddings, then one cannot pretend that allowing gay marriage has no impact upon anyone other than the people getting married......to deny it merely demonstrates dishonesty......

 

[PratchettFan]

Permitting SSM does not force her to do anything. Public Accommodation laws do that. Two entirely different things.

I'm sorry, did you really mean to dodge the issue?.....

Not dodging at all. If you consider a PA law to be unfair, then you should address the PA law. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether US citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law.

and that has nothing to do with whether laws authorizing SSM force those not getting married to do anything......as pointed out, in the case of both the florist and the baker, the law authorizing SSM did in fact require them to do something.....thus, the claim that it didn't falls short of truth.....

There is absolutely nothing in any SSM law which authorizes any such thing. Show me one from any state which does.

oh come on....do you think you can win this argument by just pretending you don't see it?.......did we have bakers and florists and photographers being threatened with law suits for not providing services for gay weddings before states began allowing gay weddings?.....if allowing gay weddings permits law suits against those who don't want to provide services for gay weddings, then one cannot pretend that allowing gay marriage has no impact upon anyone other than the people getting married......to deny it merely demonstrates dishonesty......

I see what you are saying. It is just the two really aren't connected at all. When interracial marriages were found to be Constitutionally protected I am sure there were all kinds of people who didn't want to have to provide services to them. That does not mean interracial couples shouldn't be given the same rights as everyone else. I am certain that many of those people thought God didn't want the races to marry.

So, to answer honestly, what you are saying is there is a conflict of rights between people who want to get married and people who provide services to weddings. If the state says the providers can refuse because of their religious beliefs, then the people getting married will have to go somewhere else for them. I am fine with that. If the state says the providers can't refuse, then the providers will either have to provide the services to them or stop providing the services entirely. I am fine with that as well. But I am not fine with denying basic rights to an entire segment of our society just on the chance those providers might have to make that decision.

Should a Baptist be prevented from marrying because a Catholic florist might be required to provide services?

 

[danielpalos]

“It is possible to have deep and passionately-held convictions without seeking to have those convictions imposed by the State on fellow citizens who do not share them”.

Fr Iggy O Donovan calls for Yes vote in marriage referendum

Should we have a referendum on the concept of a "Peoples' enjoinder" as well; to simply and merely enjoin a moral of "goodwill toward men" on the right?

 

[danielpalos]

The only people that marriage imposes upon are those wed by it.

Hi Agit8r
Tell that to the Atheists and legal groups who sue to remove Crosses.
How is this imposing on them? Yet they win, claiming to believe in separation of church and state.

Ok; how about this; we really don't want to hear the right crying about Satanists claiming they can do a better job than most alleged Christians, and are are willing to "prove" their position regarding equal work for equal pay, alongside any other religion--especially in public venues.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm sorry, did you really mean to dodge the issue?.....

Not dodging at all. If you consider a PA law to be unfair, then you should address the PA law. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether US citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law.

and that has nothing to do with whether laws authorizing SSM force those not getting married to do anything......as pointed out, in the case of both the florist and the baker, the law authorizing SSM did in fact require them to do something.....thus, the claim that it didn't falls short of truth.....

There is absolutely nothing in any SSM law which authorizes any such thing. Show me one from any state which does.

oh come on....do you think you can win this argument by just pretending you don't see it?.......did we have bakers and florists and photographers being threatened with law suits for not providing services for gay weddings before states began allowing gay weddings?.....if allowing gay weddings permits law suits against those who don't want to provide services for gay weddings, then one cannot pretend that allowing gay marriage has no impact upon anyone other than the people getting married......to deny it merely demonstrates dishonesty......

I see what you are saying. It is just the two really aren't connected at all. When interracial marriages were found to be Constitutionally protected I am sure there were all kinds of people who didn't want to have to provide services to them. That does not mean interracial couples shouldn't be given the same rights as everyone else. I am certain that many of those people thought God didn't want the races to marry.

So, to answer honestly, what you are saying is there is a conflict of rights between people who want to get married and people who provide services to weddings. If the state says the providers can refuse because of their religious beliefs, then the people getting married will have to go somewhere else for them. I am fine with that. If the state says the providers can't refuse, then the providers will either have to provide the services to them or stop providing the services entirely. I am fine with that as well. But I am not fine with denying basic rights to an entire segment of our society just on the chance those providers might have to make that decision.

Should a Baptist be prevented from marrying because a Catholic florist might be required to provide services?

Hi PratchettFan
Yes and no
It's been pointed out, over and over,
that RACE is not a behavior. Homosexual relations are a behavior.
Orientation is NOT PROVEN.

That's why there's such a legal and religious conflict over whether
gender is determined at birth as physical like RACE,
or if you can start "wandering into behavior" by saying gender is
what someone chooses to dress up like on the outside.

The people in support of recognizing gender and orientation
as an internal trait and not just a behavior on the outside
are trying to prove it is GENETIC to seal the argument.

In the meantime it is FAITH BASED.
so like any other FAITH BASED BELIEF it should be kept out of public policy
unless people agree.

People agree to the race rules, and agree to keep their beliefs in private,
so that isn't being challenged as the gender/orientation rules are being challenged by people who don't agree to keep these private. Also the rules on political beliefs haven't been formally challenged and that is happening now.

PratchettFan
as I've pointed out before,
people have gone through spiritual healing therapy and CHANGED
their lifestyle and relations, to and from either transgender, straight, gay, etc.
You can say they go back to their NATURAL self, but they go through a spiritual process to get there.

Nobody I know has ever changed their natural born race by going through spiritual healing.
So these are NOT on the same level.

If you ask me the REAL issue is CREED.
If people recognized and respected all these views and beliefs as CREEDS
then all can be treated equally in the eyes of the law.
But people on both sides keep wanting to push their creed over someone else.
So this is a violation of discrimination by creed, and both sides are equally guilty
unless they agree on consensus policies that satisfy and protect all CREEDS equally as the law calls for.