Anti LGBTQ Cynicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJH_74
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(continued)

The United State was born, in part, out of a desire that government could not dictate religious beliefs. The founders looked back on a good bit of history of religious wars and prosecution, and wanted government to stay out of it entirely. Rightly or wrongly, government was to have no say in religions; but by using the tactic of saying that something opposed by religions was a right, the SC intentionally or unintentionally (and I do not believe the latter) decided that religions were just going to have to give way.

And we have seen the predicted results. Kansas gets it. Colorado, even after losing, doesn’t get it - and I would submit, in part because the SC attempted to find a solution without confronting the fact that they created the mess.

I don’t see how the SC can sort out the mess they made without either revising the original case, or overturning it. Arguing that what was inherent in the Colorado case of the cake baker was forcing “artistic endeavor” simply sidesteps the issue. They tried that, but that will only stretch so far; and the conflict is not about artistic endeavor; it is about religious freedom. Every case so far by homosexuals against businesses has had a common denominator, and that is religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

If the State can say that in spite of consistently and long held belief, marriage is not restricted to a man and a woman, there are two strong possible ramifications right now.

One is the move within a subset of society for recognition of polyamory as a protected right to marriage.

The second is to regulate churches as a business (there are certain parallels) and to force pastors and ministers to comply.

And I will leave it up to the imagination of others to see where the founding case could further erode religious beliefs. Go play with a poisonous snake and you have no real idea where and when it might strike.
 
Last edited:
therese1998 said:
Stranger danger is real. Even of it is in the minority of abuse cases, are we really willing to see those victimized in this way as “acceptable casualties” in order to promote the LGTBQ ideology?
Click to expand...
I’m not here to change your beliefs necessarily on LGBTQ issues, but I’d argue there are way more casualties from stranger danger ideology. The estimates I’ve seen indicate a child molester offends something like 400 times before being caught. You don’t get that kind of repeatability in virtually any other crime and it’s maintained because of extreme shame or hopelessness. As I said, the vast majority are committed by people kids know…something that just drives these kids further into trouble.
therese1998 said:
Yes, I understand how SOME predators groom their victims.
Click to expand...
Again, respectfully, read up a bit on this; you might be able to save a child.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
In general, LGBT causes are not religious in the slightest. The claim that parents should lose their children because of refusing to accept the child’s chosen gender is, however, a claim based entirely on faith – and a claim that goes against science
Click to expand...
If there are any such people making these claims, they are on the way far fringes. More importantly, remember we live in a country that allows parents to deny fairly basic medical procedures based totally on religious views. Can we now put this in the category of not going to happen?
 
PJH_74 said:
I’m all ears.
Click to expand...
Your claim was that “virtually all” child sex scandals have taken place in the Catholic Church. That claim rebuts itself. The fact that you would make it shows a lot about what you pay attention to, and very little about the truth.
 
PJH_74 said:
If there are any such people making these claims, they are on the way far fringes. More importantly, remember we live in a country that allows parents to deny fairly basic medical procedures based totally on religious views. Can we now put this in the category of not going to happen?
Click to expand...
There’s a long list of things we would have put in that category a dozen years ago, including the claim that Catholic adoption agencies would be shut down for not catering to gay couples. But they are being shut down. You’re naive if you think religious liberty claims can stand for long against claims about the goods of individual fulfillment or child health. And they certainly won’t stand if we don’t fight for them.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Your claim was that “virtually all” child sex scandals have taken place in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Then how else do you propose?
Prodigal_Son said:
including the claim that Catholic adoption agencies would be shut down for not catering to gay couples.
Click to expand...
The issue is not a direct attack against Catholic Charities. In my state, and I’d be highly surprised if it was different in another, they are basically contractors to the state. As least in one Diocese in my state, and again one would expect it to be similar in others, CC drew 85% of its funding from the state. If a state submits to what a particular religion wants, for something that is legal and has been receiving money to implement, I think one could make a good argument for this being an establishment issue. A gay couple suing for their rights (within a secular legal context) cannot have this legal right blocked by a religious organization. It’s within CC’s rights to remove themselves from the situation, but it does not have a legal right to block this as they are paid to follow state guidelines and law.
CCHcolonel said:
The people calling for gay marriage and the normalization and public acceptance of transgenders all used to be pretty fringe too.
Click to expand...
You cannot describe something as fringe when it as a super majority:

www.usatoday.com

Poll: Approval of same-sex marriage in U.S. reaches new high

More than two-thirds of Americans say they support same-sex marriage, according to a new Gallup poll published Wednesday.
www.usatoday.com
 
CCHcolonel said:
You cannot describe something as fringe when it as a super majority
Click to expand...
Well I think I’ve laid out well enough why this not too likely. Aside from health care, the Amish are allowed to only educate their children up to 8th grade for example. There is plenty of legal precedent here. Gay marriage and transgender people are legal adults, not individuals under your care.

You must understand addressing transgender issues for minors is something I’m quite cautious of. I personally believe keeping all options open until 18 is important. That even means the individual making a choice not to go forward.
 
Last edited:
CCHcolonel said:
I’m just saying things people support now, didn’t used to be.
Click to expand...
That’s fine, I’ll just leave it at I think this is more about reaction to recent and rapid changes. As for your Grandfather, he probably would not have expected Catholics attain parity with Protestants in this country either in the USA.
 
JMMJ said:
CCHcolonel:
And my point of it, is that things that start out as fringe, don’t always remain so.
Click to expand...
And thank goodness for that!!!
Click to expand...
Just imagine if nothing had changed in the US with respect to who could vote. We’d still have a country where black people and women still couldn’t vote. And I’m sure that if we were able to tell someone in the US who lived 200 years ago that women and black people would one day be able to vote, they’d probably be astounded. Women and black people voting was probably a “fringe” idea at one time.
 
Last edited:
PJH_74 said:
I’m not here to change your beliefs necessarily on LGBTQ issues, but I’d argue there are way more casualties from stranger danger ideology.
Click to expand...
I don’t need you to change my mind. I’m capable of doing it on my own, given compelling evidence.
PJH_74 said:
The estimates I’ve seen indicate a child molester offends something like 400 times before being caught. You don’t get that kind of repeatability in virtually any other crime and it’s maintained because of extreme shame or hopelessness
Click to expand...
No arguement. I’m just not willing to allow a minority of children to be victimized in order to keep up with politically correct ideology which may or may not protect a majority of children. Not acceptable and we can do better.
PJH_74 said:
Again, respectfully, read up a bit on this; you might be able to save a child.
Click to expand...
I certainly hope so. And, respectfully, you might be able to save a child if you realize that political ideology is not an excuse for an acceptable casualties mindset.
 
Things that start out as fringe don’t always remain so. Indeed. Same sex marriage was once not only fringe, but impossible. Now it’s accepted and mainstream, but still impossible. A man becoming a woman is still fringe, yet pushing for acceptance. Still impossible, but that doesn’t seem to matter.
Pedophilia is still fringe as to public acceptance. But give it time.
 
JimG said:
Pedophilia is still fringe as to public acceptance.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. Pedophilia is a serous abuse of children. LGBTQ issues by far are about people looking to live in a way consistent with the way they experience life.
 
PJH_74 said:
Yeah, no. Pedophilia is a serous abuse of children. LGBTQ issues by far are about people looking to live in a way consistent with the way they experience life.
Click to expand...
Non sequitor. JimG wasn’t comparing the two. He was responding to your claim that religious liberties are not at risk, because the totalitarians are “fringe”.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Non sequitor. JimG wasn’t comparing the two
Click to expand...
I understand, they are massively different, and that was my point. It does not follow that expansion of LGBTQ rights will ever make Pedophilia acceptable. Virtually all of the changes that some people have issues with are (were) morality laws (some of which have very spotty histories); not criminal behavior.
 
PJH_74 said:
Then let me clarify. Laws that prohibit abuse, murder, theft, etc. Laws that prevent personal behaviors simply because society doesn’t like them is another.
Click to expand...
If an action literally affected no one else, then it certainly wouldn’t often be outlawed. Most every law is justified by the claim that it prevents harms to people other than the person who breaks it. Do you disagree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top