Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter NoMoreGames
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
royal_archer said:
The governement should not force her to act in a way she feels is immoral.
Click to expand...
I know that this analogy is a stretch, but if a couple existed the felt it would be immoral (out of danger of the child turning into a delinquent) to not physically abuse the chile when they misbehaved, the government should still have no say? The government exists to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty; sometimes the government DOES have the right to step in. By living in this country you essentially agree to those terms.
 
What’s happening right now is not really freedom of religion, but more of freedom FROM religion. Freedom of religion is the freedom to express your own relation to God. While freedom FROM religion is for atheists, or people who make GOD conform to the will of the people.
 
Patty23 said:
What’s happening right now is not really freedom of religion, but more of freedom FROM religion. Freedom of religion is the freedom to express your own relation to God.
Click to expand...
True, until…
Patty23 said:
While freedom FROM religion is for atheists, or people who make GOD conform to the will of the people.
Click to expand...
How can they make something they don’t even believe in conform to their will? Atheism, while not technically a religion in the traditional sense, is still protected under the freedom of religion (which in fact includes freedom from religion if the individual so chooses).
 
NoMoreGames said:
True, until…

How can they make something they don’t even believe in conform to their will? Atheism, while not technically a religion in the traditional sense, is still protected under the freedom of religion (which in fact includes freedom from religion if the individual so chooses).
Click to expand...
Wait, I said " OR" … Right?🙂

I was referring to two group of people. One are the atheists, and the other one are people who make God according to their image and likeness, or in other words, making GOD conform to their will
 
NoMoreGames said:
I know that this analogy is a stretch, but if a couple existed the felt it would be immoral (out of danger of the child turning into a delinquent) to not physically abuse the chile when they misbehaved, the government should still have no say? The government exists to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty; sometimes the government DOES have the right to step in. By living in this country you essentially agree to those terms.
Click to expand...
I assume you are not going into the spanking debate and are talking about abuse. In such a case the government does have a right/duty to protect the child. However this is completely different from the current discussion. I can deny services to someone with out harming them. Like wise the government has the obligation to protect gays from assault but not to promote their lifestyle.
 
royal_archer said:
I assume you are not going into the spanking debate and are talking about abuse. In such a case the government does have a right/duty to protect the child. However this is completely different from the current discussion. I can deny services to someone with out harming them. Like wise the government has the obligation to protect gays from assault but not to promote their lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Correctly assumed, but just like there are more ways then physical restrait to conpromise your freedom of religion, there are more ways that just physical to harm sone one. The government is involved in copyrights and patents. Those are not physical, yet they are protected. The scenario did not involve denying service, it involved treating employees differently based off of your personal deffiniton of something. Should a white supremacist have the right to treat a black employee differently because he truly in his heart believes whites are superior to blacks?
 
NoMoreGames said:
Correctly assumed, but just like there are more ways then physical restrait to conpromise your freedom of religion, there are more ways that just physical to harm sone one. The government is involved in copyrights and patents. Those are not physical, yet they are protected. The scenario did not involve denying service, it involved treating employees differently based off of your personal deffiniton of something.
Click to expand...
Aren’t copyrights used to protect property? what about trademarks? The government should protect those terms not corrupting them. While the religous community is not a single legal entity it should essentially be regarded as the “owner” of the term marriage. And just like the government prohibits the missuse of copy righted and trademarked terms it should provide similar protection to the term: “Marriage”.
NoMoreGames said:
Should a white supremacist have the right to treat a black employee differently because he truly in his heart believes whites are superior to blacks?
Click to expand...
The better analogy would be should a buisness owner treat an employee with a race based superiority complex differently. The answer is that the employer needs to act in the best interest of his business. If the employee does not feel that they are being treated properly they need to find a better job. By the way, the government does choose to grant protections based on race but does not offer protections for the vast majority of individual traits.
 
EasterJoy said:
Science is never going to give men wombs or give women the “Y” chromosomes necessary to produce male children. Even if it did, I think Ms. No-Marriage-14-Children has shown the limitations of letting people do whatever science can let them do.\
Click to expand...
I’ve met women who are XY and gave birth and XX men who are fathers. Sex is more complicated then just the Y chromosome. The SRY gene on it can move, or vanish and cause a, sometimes fully functional, opposite sexed from what the chromosomes would indicate.

Both are incredibly rare mind, but there is no such thing as ‘never’
 
“Never” happens all the time. So does “always”. It’s The Liar who makes people think there is “no never” or “no always”.

Will God be the Holy Foursome. Never.
Will The Pope tell a lie when speaking ex cathedra? Never.
Will The Liar triumph over Truth? Never.
Can He who neither deceives or be deceived, be wrong. Never.

Is the Eucharist the true Body and Blood of Christ? Always
Is God Truth? Always.
Is The Vicar of Christ infallible when speaking ex cathedra? Always.
 
GodLovesTheSpek said:
“Never” happens all the time. So does “always”. It’s The Liar who makes people think there is “no never” or “no always”.

Will God be the Holy Foursome. Never.
Will The Pope tell a lie when speaking ex cathedra? Never.
Will The Liar triumph over Truth? Never.
Can He who neither deceives or be deceived, be wrong. Never.

Is the Eucharist the true Body and Blood of Christ? Always
Is God Truth? Always.
Is The Vicar of Christ infallible when speaking ex cathedra? Always.
Click to expand...
Can I ask which side you are on? You haven’t said anything concrete, or even contributed a single social view with out using religious rhetorical flourish, so I’m really curious. As for your never and always comments, what do they have to do with the social ramifications of permitting gay marriage?
 
I try, with God’s grace and mercy, to be within The Truth. Concrete? Truth is concrete. Lies are nebulous. Everthing outside the Truth is Lies, from The Liar, murderer from The Beginning.
 
GodLovesTheSpek said:
I try, with God’s grace and mercy, to be within The Truth. Everthing else outside Truth is Lies, from The Liar, murderer from The Beginning.
Click to expand...
Your reply has nothing to do with my reply, other than a single word. You didn’t speak to any of the specifics.
 
Truth is specific. Truth is as real as it gets. What do you seek?
 
NoMoreGames said:
Why does it have to be part of a major religion’s beliefs in order to be protected in our constitution? That wasn’t the point of that post.
Click to expand...
I am surprised at your question when your arguments for and
against is involving religious beliefs regarding the topic.
:confused:
 
pathia said:
Even when it causes sexual ambiguity and unknown sex?
Click to expand...
Yes. If chromosones are configured in an usual way then so be it. DNA not ideal – God’s will. We are not perfect. Our love for God is tested by our (name removed by moderator)erfections. God loves us so much that He tests and strenghens our love by placing us in the fire. I am not perfect, I am tested and cast into fire each and every day. I am thankful for these tests no matter how terrible they might seem because I know that the suffering involved is not lost with God. In the end He will do what is right and merciful. As much as I love God I must also love every single one of my brothers and sisters as they are created in His image. I must see Jesus in every human being. We all must.
 
GodLovesTheSpek said:
Yes. If chromosones are configured in an usual way then so be it. DNA not ideal – God’s will. We are not perfect. Our love for God is tested by our (name removed by moderator)erfections. God loves us so much that He tests and strenghens our love by placing us in the fire. I am not perfect, I am tested and cast into fire each and every day. I am thankful for these tests no matter how terrible they might seem because I know that the suffering involved is not lost with God. In the end He will do what is right and merciful. As much as I love God I must also love every single one of my brothers and sisters as they are created in His image. I must see Jesus in every human being. We all must.
Click to expand...
It leaves me with zero options, even church bioethics experts have never been able to give me any sort of answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top