Do you support imposing your belief system on non-believers?

[Dan123]

It has been already.

In what way have you been prevented from practicing your idea of marriage within your religious community?

Well, the proposition is merely about the scope of marriage adopted by the State. So that appears to be something within the purview of the majority to decide.

Only to the degree it does not infringe on other constitutional rights. Loving v. Virginia established interracial marriage as legal based on the equal protections clause, getting rid of laws that drew a distinction between married parties based on race. The same reasoning applied in Obergefell v Hodges. So the idea that the definition was changed out of the blue is disingenuous, its consistent with established constitutional law.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

The saddest thing today has been the decades long playing at heart strings peer pressure at first, then legally in schools teaching impressionable children against Nature’s Laws(ref. Declaration of Independence.)
With many growing of age, after their minds being distorted against the Judaeo Christian Ethic, or complacent what their children are being taught with emotionally charged justifications - some parents are being told they cannot ‘opt out’ their children.
Gradually, more and more we do not see the threat to our children and other impressionable with violations against conscience rights, free speech, and other freedoms growing over the decades. So many are anesthetized because it happened over decades.
Schools teaching immorality to children actually violates the First Amendment. By definition, GOD by Grace provides inner joy which includes understanding GOD’s Ways. Inner lack of peace of GOD, which many times is obscured by ‘denial’ & ‘passive anger’ & ‘rationalization,’ to individuals and families makes for a more unhappy society. The increase in radical secular humanism, growth in not only unGodliness, but teaching it correlates with a huge increase of absentee fathers, divorce, family courts & child services overflowing, disillusioned young people, substance abuse, suicide, and many other ills. This happens among all socioeconomic strata.
~
The Holy Bible calls this punishment in Providence allowed by God.
And we can only hope we raise awareness with an improved society by raising awareness to change law and practice.
~
Also, QUAS PRIMAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON THE FEAST OF CHRIST THE KING
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.
directs us to assert with all due diligence The Sovereignty of Jesus The King,
as best we are able. Many times in the U.S.A. the only way to do this is to hold on to GOD’s Ways in Law and Practice, using Nature’s Laws, The God of Nature, and Creator with self evident rights beginning with the right to life, whereby liberty should never be used for murder. And so on.
~
Other societies who turn away from GOD have suffered in history. Peace.
Complacency is not an option, since all freedom is at stake.

 

[Freddy]

I’m going to admit my blood boiled for a moment that you attached ‘loving’ only to the second example there but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren’t trying to suggest that the couple raising her isn’t loving.

To love is to will the good of another. It is entirely independent of a person’s feelings or sentiment.

It seems odd that you appear to be suggesting that someone couldn’t will the good of another if they were both the same sex.

 

[Freddy]

K9Buck:

Thanks @TK421, but I disagree. My marriage has no effect on you.

Your marriage is changing the world as much or more than your career.

If K9 told you that he wasn’t actually married but simply living with his partner, then what would be the difference we would see in changes to the world?

 

[Freddy]

We are just beginning to see the differences because the changes to society are still young, although the more time that passes, the more solidified the data will become.

Can you please give us some of the less solidified data that you have?

 

[Dan123]

Can you please give us some of the less solidified data that you have?

I can help. Same-sex and different-sex parent households and child health outcomes: findings from the National Survey of Children’s Health

Children with female same-sex parents and different-sex parents demonstrated no differences in outcomes, despite female same-sex parents reporting more parenting stress. Future studies may reveal the sources of this parenting stress.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Can you please give us some of the less solidified data that you have?

I can help. Same-sex and different-sex parent households and child health outcomes: findings from the National Survey of Children’s Health

Children with female same-sex parents and different-sex parents demonstrated no differences in outcomes, despite female same-sex parents reporting more parenting stress. Future studies may reveal the sources of this parenting stress.

Thanks, Dan. Those are the type of results I’ve found as well. Some listed here: http://theconversation.com/factchec...r-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313. But TK must have something that shows the opposite.

 

[upant]

It’s an interdenominational seminary, do all the denominations teach it’s wrong?

who knows what so many denominations teach?

Why did the school signup to accept money that came with federal anti-discrimination rules if they needed to enforce these rules? That seems dishonest.

so the interdenominational seminary has to give up its beliefs because it accepts federal money? the question is, why attend a school that teaches something different than what you believe and expect them to change. it is the agenda that is dishonest

On the contrary, it is the religious right that is “excluding” gay people from being able to exercise the same rights that heterosexual people enjoy.

religious people didn’t do any such thing. the government had to change the meaning of marriage to accommodate the few.

Would you continue to support the concept of government and laws being based on Sharia Law if Muslims suddenly became the majority?

you won’t have the ability to object if they become the majority.

 

[Dan123]

the government had to change the meaning of marriage to accommodate the few.

They didn’t, the government’s definition of marriage has always been a contractual and tax arrangement.

 

[BornInMarch]

I don’t support imposing my belief system on others unless it can be defended on a secular basis. For example, I believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and adopt children because I’m not convinced by the few non-religious arguments made in opposition. At the same time I believe Abortion should be illegal and punished under law, even in cases of rape or incest, because am convinced that an unborn child is a living person with human rights and I’m sure I’d continue to believe that even if I lost my faith (God forbid [literally]).

Why does it need to be a secular argument for me? Because I live in the United States where there is both the Separation of church and state and the Freedom of Religion, two very good ideas.

 

[Rau]

In what way have you been prevented from practicing your idea of marriage within your religious community?

I didn’t realize your point was that specific. I referred to the more particular restrictions which have already sought to be applied to Catholics. Eg. The Australian archbishop taken to a human rights tribunal for having the temerity to communicate the catholic understanding of marriage to the parents of children attending catholic schools. Or the attempts being made to curtail freedoms Australian religious schools currently have to focus recruitment on persons sharing the beliefs and tenets the school professes.

 

[Rau]

So the idea that the definition was changed out of the blue is disingenuous, its consistent with established constitutional law.

I’ve no idea what you are talking about. I said simply that the civil definition of marriage is a matter that can be determined by the majority (and yes, always subject to the constitutional restrictions). So there is no cause for the “disingenuous” charge you make.

 

[upant]

They didn’t, the government’s definition of marriage has always been a contractual and tax arrangement.

and it was between a man and a woman, you can’t leave that part out.

in the past, the government didn’t consider the union of two people of the same sex a valid marriage.

besides, the change isn’t universally accepted,

 

[Dan123]

and it was between a man and a woman, you can’t leave that part out.

in the past, the government didn’t consider the union of two people of the same sex a valid marriage.

besides, the change isn’t universally accepted,

In the past the government didn’t consider the union of a man and woman of different races to be a valid marriage either. The change isn’t universally accepted today.

It’s still good it changed, and I imagine we’re on the same side of that argument. What do we say when someone comes and says “the government shouldn’t have changed the definition”?

 

[Rau]

Would you continue to support the concept of government and laws being based on Sharia Law if Muslims suddenly became the majority?

Well, the right to object ought to remain, but ultimately the majority decides the law.

 

[Rau]

People should simply get “married” within the private organization to which they belong and then they can proclaim to the world that they’re “married”, if they so choose.

Even then, the government would need to recognise or reject claims of marriage one assumes. So introduction of SSM would necessitate government agreement. Governments may continue to reject the notion of siblings marrying (most currently do) if some “private organization” decided it would introduce that.

 

[Rau]

Speak of the devil. Mississippi lawmaker wants public school students to engage in Christian prayer at school.

That would be contentious. At least the proposed prayer (“Our Father”) is only mildly Explicit in so far as Christian specifics are concerned.

 

[rachelbernadette]

No and no. I think the law has to be separate from the church. Render unto Caesar.

 

[upant]

In the past the government didn’t consider the union of a man and woman of different races to be a valid marriage either. The change isn’t universally accepted today.

It’s still good it changed, and I imagine we’re on the same side of that argument. What do we say when someone comes and says “the government shouldn’t have changed the definition”?

the definition of marriage wasn’t changed, the marriage was still between a man and a woman.

Well, the right to object ought to remain, but ultimately the majority decides the law.

under sharia some things you just can’t do.

 

[Allegra]

Yes. Everyone does. Including you. For example, I suspect we both agree that a person should not be allowed to go around stabbing people and stealing their wallets. Some people believe they are entitled to do such things, but we disagree. We think that people who do such things should be locked up in order to protect society.