Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[JoeB131]

[

LMFAO... If Bush ran for president today, he'd beat Obama in a landslide.
And he wouldn't even have to mention marriage.

Are you on drugs?

 

[Czernobog]

From whence do you derive your presumed authority to declare what is, and is not moral, not for yourself - we all have that right - but for everyone else?

From whence are YOU presuming this authority? I bet it's the same place.

I'm not that's the point. I am insisting that my personal moral views have absolutely no authority over the actions of anyone else, and neither do yours. No one's does. That is the point of the freedom from religion - no one gets to demand that anyone else live in accordance with one's personal moral views.

You see, we have the inalienable right to self govern. This means, we have the right to establish laws, which are essentially "restrictions on liberty" within the confines of free civil society. Most of those parameters are derived (at some point) through morality generally found in religious teaching. But even if they weren't, we still have the inalienable freedom of religion, so we can also establish laws which are outright religiously-based, if that's what "the people" want.

Yes, we do. However those laws must conform to the liberties enumerated in the Constitution. We do not have unlimited freedom to pass any laws we see fit.

Now, the difference in you and I is, I understand we are part of a collective society who also have a voice, and sometimes we may have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do. You seem to not grasp that concept and think that you can use government or courts to force society to accept what you want, even if they don't want it.

Really? Because you seem awfully willing to force everyone to conform to your views on what makes a marriage, and on the "morality" of homosexuality. It would seem to me that the people who understand that "have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do," are the ones who, while they themselves, are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, are in favor of letting everyony - including homosexuals - enjoy all of the rights, and liberties of everyone else.

Go ahead. Tell me again about how it should not be allowed because of its "immorality", while still pretending to believe in liberty...

 

[Boss]

From whence do you derive your presumed authority to declare what is, and is not moral, not for yourself - we all have that right - but for everyone else?

From whence are YOU presuming this authority? I bet it's the same place.

I'm not that's the point. I am insisting that my personal moral views have absolutely no authority over the actions of anyone else, and neither do yours. No one's does. That is the point of the freedom from religion - no one gets to demand that anyone else live in accordance with one's personal moral views.

Well sure you are! You are trying to force me to live with homosexuals marrying. And now you reveal that it's because you basically believe in no moral boundaries whatsoever. Doesn't really matter how perverse or sick it might be, you don't think we have the right to impose our moral views.

There is no "freedom from religion." Don't even know where to tell you to go find that... Religion is found in virtually every human society on the planet. What WE have is "freedom OF religion." That means, my viewpoints are equally valid to yours, even if I am religious.

But now... aren't the seculars always claiming human morality is some sort of primal trait that doesn't base itself in religion? That atheists and god-haters are fully capable of being moral without a God? Here we see a clear example of what sort of "morality" is acceptable, or becomes acceptable quickly, as you remove moral boundaries and confront taboos.

You see, we have the inalienable right to self govern. This means, we have the right to establish laws, which are essentially "restrictions on liberty" within the confines of free civil society. Most of those parameters are derived (at some point) through morality generally found in religious teaching. But even if they weren't, we still have the inalienable freedom of religion, so we can also establish laws which are outright religiously-based, if that's what "the people" want.

Yes, we do. However those laws must conform to the liberties enumerated in the Constitution. We do not have unlimited freedom to pass any laws we see fit.

Sorry, but the only thing "enumerated" in the Constitution are the powers enumerated to government. We are endowed inalienable rights. We have the right to self-govern, meaning we have the right to establish the boundaries of our liberties as a society.

Now, the difference in you and I is, I understand we are part of a collective society who also have a voice, and sometimes we may have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do. You seem to not grasp that concept and think that you can use government or courts to force society to accept what you want, even if they don't want it.

Really? Because you seem awfully willing to force everyone to conform to your views on what makes a marriage, and on the "morality" of homosexuality. It would seem to me that the people who understand that "have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do," are the ones who, while they themselves, are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, are in favor of letting everyony - including homosexuals - enjoy all of the rights, and liberties of everyone else.

Go ahead. Tell me again about how it should not be allowed because of its "immorality", while still pretending to believe in liberty...

You seem to be confused here... you have said you want to make it law of the land that homosexuals can marry. I have advocated for civil unions and removing government from the position of dictating what marriage means to the individual.... Which one of us is trying to impose their moral view on the other???

Liberty-shmiberty! This is NOT about LIBERTY! There is no place on this planet or in this universe, where everybody gets to just do as they goddam-well-please! Every law, rule, code of the most rudimentary human tribe, is some kind of restraint, restriction or limitation of some form of "liberty" in some way. We do not have the "liberty" to run around naked hurling our shit at each other. It's just the way it is! In a civil society, freedoms and liberties are restricted and limited. In OUR society, we have the constitutional right to establish those boundaries.

I believe in liberty more than you! You want a court or government to mandate Gay Marriage. Period! That is what you want, and nothing less will do. I am opposed to government mandating anything! I want THE PEOPLE to have that liberty on their own, without government involved. Why is government getting to tell us what the hell "marriage" is? Why can't individuals have the liberty to decide that for themselves?

 

[Kondor3]

...Go ahead. Tell me again about how it should not be allowed because of its "immorality", while still pretending to believe in liberty...

Child sexual molestation is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

Bestiality is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

Necrophilia is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

Homosexuality is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

The only reason why homosexuality is disappearing from the list of taboos is an unfortunate and grotesque relaxation of related morals in The West.

However, vast numbers of people believe that homosexuality should remain on that list of taboos, and most probably believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

And, subsequent to that, vast numbers of people believe that gay marriage serves to normalize or legitimize an immoral state of affairs.

Most of those, too, probably believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

 

[JoeB131]

Well sure you are! You are trying to force me to live with homosexuals marrying. And now you reveal that it's because you basically believe in no moral boundaries whatsoever. Doesn't really matter how perverse or sick it might be, you don't think we have the right to impose our moral views.

There is no "freedom from religion." Don't even know where to tell you to go find that... Religion is found in virtually every human society on the planet. What WE have is "freedom OF religion." That means, my viewpoints are equally valid to yours, even if I am religious.

But now... aren't the seculars always claiming human morality is some sort of primal trait that doesn't base itself in religion? That atheists and god-haters are fully capable of being moral without a God? Here we see a clear example of what sort of "morality" is acceptable, or becomes acceptable quickly, as you remove moral boundaries and confront taboos.

dude, you're melting down here.

religious morality has included Crusades, Jihads, torture of heretics, burning of witches, suppression of science and a lot of other bullshit every time a King got horny and wanted a new wife.

And you are getting upset because a couple of dudes are having the butt-sex.

 

[Kondor3]

...religious morality has included Crusades, Jihads, torture of heretics, burning of witches, suppression of science and a lot of other bullshit every time a King got horny and wanted a new wife...

No, those are examples of the twisting and perverting of religious morality - and marketing those perversions to an illiterate populace - to accomplish worldly objectives.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From whence do you derive your presumed authority to declare what is, and is not moral, not for yourself - we all have that right - but for everyone else?

From whence are YOU presuming this authority? I bet it's the same place.

I'm not that's the point. I am insisting that my personal moral views have absolutely no authority over the actions of anyone else, and neither do yours. No one's does. That is the point of the freedom from religion - no one gets to demand that anyone else live in accordance with one's personal moral views.

Well sure you are! You are trying to force me to live with homosexuals marrying. And now you reveal that it's because you basically believe in no moral boundaries whatsoever. Doesn't really matter how perverse or sick it might be, you don't think we have the right to impose our moral views.

There is no "freedom from religion." Don't even know where to tell you to go find that... Religion is found in virtually every human society on the planet. What WE have is "freedom OF religion." That means, my viewpoints are equally valid to yours, even if I am religious.

But now... aren't the seculars always claiming human morality is some sort of primal trait that doesn't base itself in religion? That atheists and god-haters are fully capable of being moral without a God? Here we see a clear example of what sort of "morality" is acceptable, or becomes acceptable quickly, as you remove moral boundaries and confront taboos.

You see, we have the inalienable right to self govern. This means, we have the right to establish laws, which are essentially "restrictions on liberty" within the confines of free civil society. Most of those parameters are derived (at some point) through morality generally found in religious teaching. But even if they weren't, we still have the inalienable freedom of religion, so we can also establish laws which are outright religiously-based, if that's what "the people" want.

Yes, we do. However those laws must conform to the liberties enumerated in the Constitution. We do not have unlimited freedom to pass any laws we see fit.

Sorry, but the only thing "enumerated" in the Constitution are the powers enumerated to government. We are endowed inalienable rights. We have the right to self-govern, meaning we have the right to establish the boundaries of our liberties as a society.

Now, the difference in you and I is, I understand we are part of a collective society who also have a voice, and sometimes we may have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do. You seem to not grasp that concept and think that you can use government or courts to force society to accept what you want, even if they don't want it.

Really? Because you seem awfully willing to force everyone to conform to your views on what makes a marriage, and on the "morality" of homosexuality. It would seem to me that the people who understand that "have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do," are the ones who, while they themselves, are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, are in favor of letting everyony - including homosexuals - enjoy all of the rights, and liberties of everyone else.

Go ahead. Tell me again about how it should not be allowed because of its "immorality", while still pretending to believe in liberty...

You seem to be confused here... you have said you want to make it law of the land that homosexuals can marry. I have advocated for civil unions and removing government from the position of dictating what marriage means to the individual.... Which one of us is trying to impose their moral view on the other???

Liberty-shmiberty! This is NOT about LIBERTY! There is no place on this planet or in this universe, where everybody gets to just do as they goddam-well-please! Every law, rule, code of the most rudimentary human tribe, is some kind of restraint, restriction or limitation of some form of "liberty" in some way. We do not have the "liberty" to run around naked hurling our shit at each other. It's just the way it is! In a civil society, freedoms and liberties are restricted and limited. In OUR society, we have the constitutional right to establish those boundaries.

I believe in liberty more than you! You want a court or government to mandate Gay Marriage. Period! That is what you want, and nothing less will do. I am opposed to government mandating anything! I want THE PEOPLE to have that liberty on their own, without government involved. Why is government getting to tell us what the hell "marriage" is? Why can't individuals have the liberty to decide that for themselves?

Of course there's freedom from religion.

This post is an example of some of the worst manifestations of religion, and why our Constitution prohibits its codification.

 

[JoeB131]

...religious morality has included Crusades, Jihads, torture of heretics, burning of witches, suppression of science and a lot of other bullshit every time a King got horny and wanted a new wife...

No, those are examples of the twisting and perverting of religious morality - and marketing those perversions to an illiterate populace - to accomplish worldly objectives.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy!

"When the Churches burned witches, they were perverting religious morality!"

Um... no.

It says to kill witches, right in the Bible.

"Thou Shall not Suffer a Witch to Live!"

The bible tells us to murder witches and people who work on the Sabbath and our kids if they talk back to us and a whole lot of other things, but no one but crazy people take that seriously today.

 

[Conservative65]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Should I take your support for what you call “marriage equality” to mean you believe close relatives, even a brother and sister, can get married? Or someone having multiple spouses? Be careful how you answer. It will determine whether you really support equality or an agenda for two homos.

 

[Conservative65]

Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...

If the argument for same sex marriage centers around consenting adults who love each other being able to get married, there is no difference. Same applies to close relatives marrying if the argument is truly about equality.

 

[Conservative65]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

 

[Conservative65]

A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.

Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.

MYOB

Seems you lefties say the government has no place in our private lives until you want them there .

You can support what you want but understand that no same sex marriage will ever be equal to mine. They will be considered second rate to anyone that matters. For those like you that think differently, what you think doesn’t matter because YOU don’t matter.

 

[Kondor3]

...This post is an example of some of the worst manifestations of religion, and why our Constitution prohibits its codification.

Separation of Church and State is largely a good thing.

Up to (but not including) the point where the Secular State begins to accommodate sexual perversion and similar aberrations.

We live in a Secularized Christian state.

Our laws, morals, philosophy and culture are based upon the European Christian tradition, as that evolved from the combination of Roman and Frankish and Germanic traditions that we inherited from Antiquity, as preserved and embellished and edited by The Church (a.k.a. the Roman Catholic Church,all across Western Europe, pre-Reformation).

Our Founding Fathers merely decided to ban The Church from interfering in governance, but did not put barriers in place to prevent The Church from heavily influencing the philosophical baseline behind our laws, nor to prevent the majority bloc of Believers from crafting laws which mirrored religious teachings insofar as may be practicable.

The Supreme Court acts as a brake against excesses in that vein, but, in recent times, it has undertaken far more social engineering - judicial activism - than many feel warranted or safe, with respect to the long-term well-being of the Republic and its People.

 

[Kondor3]

...religious morality has included Crusades, Jihads, torture of heretics, burning of witches, suppression of science and a lot of other bullshit every time a King got horny and wanted a new wife...

No, those are examples of the twisting and perverting of religious morality - and marketing those perversions to an illiterate populace - to accomplish worldly objectives.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy!

"When the Churches burned witches, they were perverting religious morality!"

Um... no.

It says to kill witches, right in the Bible.

"Thou Shall not Suffer a Witch to Live!"

The bible tells us to murder witches and people who work on the Sabbath and our kids if they talk back to us and a whole lot of other things, but no one but crazy people take that seriously today.

Jesus of Nazareth:

"Judge not, lest ye be judged"

"Love thy neighbor, as thee love thyself"

The New Testament trumps the Old.

The Old is there as both an early attempt to explain existence and as historical narrative.

The Old continues to serve in a secondary capacity as moral guide only for situations which cannot be resolved through a scrutiny and application of the New.

New trumps Old.

How can you condemn a witch when such judgment contradicts the parameters laid down by The Founder (Jesus) concerning judgement?

And that's just one counterpoint.

I don't remember Jesus of Nazareth saying that it was OK to go to war (Crusade), in order to advance The Faith, or to defend The Faithful.

Unlike Islam, whose sacred texts are absolutely saturated with such permissions to commit violence and wage war against the Unbeliever.

The Crusades were first and foremost a matter of worldly churchmen, conniving alongside secular leaders, twisting and perverting the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, directed against a population which was 99.99% illiterate, many centuries ago, in order to pull that off.

If Jesus had time-traveled into the era of the Crusades, and seen what his Church was doing in his name, he would have bitch-slapped the big shots who twisted his teachings like that.

If Muhammed had time-traveled into the era of the Crusades (Jihad), and seen what his Mosque was doing in his name, he would have clapped the Islamic big shots on the back and praised their faithfulness.

 

[JoeB131]

The New Testament trumps the Old.

The Old is there as both an early attempt to explain existence and as historical narrative.

Uh. NO. Not even a nice try.

Your argument would hold water if you all stopped doing the stupid shit after Jesus.

But "Christians" were still burning witches as late as the 18th century.

List of people executed for witchcraft - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeB131]

If Jesus had time-traveled into the era of the Crusades, and seen what his Church was doing in his name, he would have bitch-slapped the big shots who twisted his teachings like that.

If Jesus time traveled to today, he'd bitch-slap most of the Christian right.

 

[Kondor3]

The New Testament trumps the Old.

The Old is there as both an early attempt to explain existence and as historical narrative.

Uh. NO. Not even a nice try.

Your argument would hold water if you all stopped doing the stupid shit after Jesus.

But "Christians" were still burning witches as late as the 18th century.

List of people executed for witchcraft - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you operating under the impression that I dispute the idea that so-called Christians burned witches?

I'm not.

I merely hold that they allowed the Old Testament injunction to override the New - ignoring the teachings of Jesus in order to persecute those whom they perceived to threaten their well-being.

They twisted and perverted - or, in this case, simply ignored - the newer and overriding teachings of Jesus - in order to conduct such persecutions.

 

[Kondor3]

If Jesus had time-traveled into the era of the Crusades, and seen what his Church was doing in his name, he would have bitch-slapped the big shots who twisted his teachings like that.

If Jesus time traveled to today, he'd bitch-slap most of the Christian right.

Quite possibly, in connection with a number of issues.

Nolo contendere.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I merely hold that they allowed the Old Testament injunction to override the New - ignoring the teachings of Jesus in order to persecute those whom they perceived to threaten their well-being.

They twisted and perverted - or, in this case, simply ignored - the newer and overriding teachings of Jesus - in order to conduct such persecutions.

Except Jesus said no such thing.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)


Jesus did not say to end Slavery, or stop killing the gays, or that you should stop killing witches.

So this shit stopped, not because the BIble Changed or God Changed his mind, but because WE did.

​

 

[Kondor3]

[

I merely hold that they allowed the Old Testament injunction to override the New - ignoring the teachings of Jesus in order to persecute those whom they perceived to threaten their well-being.

They twisted and perverted - or, in this case, simply ignored - the newer and overriding teachings of Jesus - in order to conduct such persecutions.

Except Jesus said no such thing.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)


Jesus did not say to end Slavery, or stop killing the gays, or that you should stop killing witches.

So this shit stopped, not because the BIble Changed or God Changed his mind, but because WE did.

​

Ah, yes, the ever-popular debate between early Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity.

Gentiles were large excused from adherence to much of Mosaic Law very early-on during the formative decades of Christianity.

Leaving the New Testament to trump the Old.

Church scholars debated for centuries, what constituted fulfillment of The Law and Prophecy, in a Gentile context.

The debate continues - articulated by the various schools of thought which foster the debate.

Pauline Christians who take seriously the philosophical break with Mosaic Law, usually assume the New-trumps-Old stance.

But that's another conversation, in another forum zone.