Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[NoMoreGames]

NoMoreGames;4870882:

If say there was a hospital that refused to do blood transfusions but served the public nevertheless. The community was be better off with it than without it. Why shouldn’t it be funded in as much as it serves?

A hospital that does not do blood transfusions is not much use to a community at all. Practically all surgeries these days require them as well as many other treatments.

 

[ClementRome]

This is true. So all of the former foundations would simply no longer get founding if they did not adapt to the new system’s ideas. Gey marraige wouldn’t be forced on to people. Not every one would have to get marraide one one of the same gender. Busineese that rely partially on the governemnt would only have to recogonice these marraiges, not be foreced into marriage.

This is a fundamental difference worth looking at: Marriage wouldn’t be forced, but governmentally associated establishments wound not be allowed to discriminate based on the individual’s personal morals.

that causes a big problem with freedom of religion, one thing that the gay agenda is gonna hurt.

Most Christian adoption agency’s are private. However nearly every business has some government ordinance. So I don’t know what you mean by rely “partially”, considering that would nearly include all organizations to be forced to adopt to gay couples. Which again would infringe on the rights of children.

And Christian organizations aren’t only about “personal” morals. Since they have the name Christian or Catholic on it, it shows that they adhere to certain moral guidelines in they’re organizations, thus it would infringe on these moral guidelines these private and semi private organizations go by.

If say there was a hospital that refused to do blood transfusions but served the public nevertheless. The community was be better off with it than without it. Why shouldn’t it be funded in as much as it serves?

nice try. But gay marriage has nothing to do with the medical procedure of trying to save ones life. And its ludicrous to claim such. And if you wanna get down to brass tacks homosexuality reduces the life of its community that are involved in it. The average life of a homosexual is around 20-30 years below that of the average man.

 

[Benadam]

Benadam;4870905:

A hospital that does not do blood transfusions is not much use to a community at all. Practically all surgeries these days require them as well as many other treatments.

That is not the hypothetical situation presented. Suppose the communities medical requirements had little need for blood transfusions. Would it be fair to them to force the hospital that serves ‘most’ of their needs to make them offer blood transfusions?

 

[NoMoreGames]

that causes a big problem with freedom of religion, one thing that the gay agenda is gonna hurt.

Most Christian adoption agency’s are private. However nearly every business has some government ordinance. So I don’t know what you mean by rely “partially”, considering that would nearly include all organizations to be forced to adopt to gay couples. Which again would infringe on the rights of children.

And Christian organizations aren’t only about “personal” morals. Since they have the name Christian or Catholic on it, it shows that they adhere to certain moral guidelines in they’re organizations, thus it would infringe on these moral guidelines these private and semi private organizations go by.

Then the would need to adapt or find away to compensate for the funding they would loose.

And i still don’t understand how adopting to a gay couple infringes on the rights of a child. A baby can have multiple operations that it has not say it, but that not infringing?

NoMoreGames;4870915:

That is not the hypothetical situation presented. Suppose the communities medical requirements had little need for blood transfusions. Would it be fair to them to force the hospital that serves ‘most’ of their needs to make them offer blood transfusions?

But the analogy is not the same. The agencies would not have to shut down.

 

[Benadam]

But the analogy is not the same. The agencies would not have to shut down.

They would if they had become what they are by government funding. Which is the case with Catholic hospitals and abortion. The regulations that seem fair to you are very unfair to those organizations that were founded in service to the community and so were dependent on government funding. Now a service that is deemed a right forces them to not be able to ofer the community the other services they provide. .1% of service forces out the founders and piggy backs others in their place. Is this fair? Why not fund both and if one or the other no longer serves the community then stop funding them. Is funding based on service or someone’s particular moral values?

 

[NoMoreGames]

Because that’s not how the government works. If that was the case, within a few years the rules for funding and operation would become completely specific to each and every business. The government would be so wrapped up in personalization that it would not longer be able to effectively help any of them. Do you have a personal tax form? No, it standard because with the sheer volume of things it is impossible to effectively manage it any other way. Same case with funding.

 

[Benadam]

Because that’s not how the government works. If that was the case, within a few years the rules for funding and operation would become completely specific to each and every business. The government would be so wrapped up in personalization that it would not longer be able to effectively help any of them. Do you have a personal tax form? No, it standard because with the sheer volume of things it is impossible to effectively manage it any other way. Same case with funding.

How would it become specific to every business? I need an example to understand what you mean.

 

[NoMoreGames]

How would it become specific to every business? I need an example to understand what you mean.

If there is an exception that allows a governmentally funded adoption agencies to refuse adoption to gay couples on the grounds that they believe it is immoral, why not make other exceptions. A different agency could make the claim that they were founded on the ideas of the KKK and therefore should not be forced to adopt to African americans because it against their morals. Do you not see that it is simply another for of discrimination? It is just more difficult to see it as that because it is a gray area in society today. Don’t you think it was difficult for some people to see how wrong what they were doing to blacks was in the days it was not a governmental demand?

 

[Benadam]

If there is an exception that allows a governmentally funded adoption agencies to refuse adoption to gay couples on the grounds that they believe it is immoral, why not make other exceptions. A different agency could make the claim that they were founded on the ideas of the KKK and therefore should not be forced to adopt to African americans because it against their morals. Do you not see that it is simply another for of discrimination? It is just more difficult to see it as that because it is a gray area in society today. Don’t you think it was difficult for some people to see how wrong what they were doing to blacks was in the days it was not a governmental demand?

I would say it is unfair to force them to act against their conscience while the moral in question remains gray.

 

[NoMoreGames]

I would say it is unfair to force them to act against their conscience while the moral in question remains gray.

Once the law was made it wound no longer be considered gray (the grey-ness around black civil rights cleared after laws passed) so then it would be fair.

 

[Benadam]

Once the law was made it wound no longer be considered gray (the grey-ness around black civil rights cleared after laws passed) so then it would be fair.

I would argue that the confirmation of the proper moral dispostion was the cause of the establishment of the rights of blacks.

The dynamic that made the civil rights of black people to become fair is that it was no longer a gray area.

 

[NoMoreGames]

I would argue that the confirmation of the proper moral dispostion was the cause of the establishment of the rights of blacks.

The dynamic that made the civil rights of black people to become fair is that it was no longer a gray area.

So are you saying that it the grey area still existed it wold be reasonable to deny rights to blacks?

 

[Benadam]

4871188So are you saying that it the grey area still existed it wold be reasonable to deny rights to blacks?

This is an impossibility. That it is gray proves that it has not yet become reasonable. Reason informs conscience.

If the conscience of a people are not formed well eneogh to accept the proper disposition relative to a moral in question they are forced out of their own institutions, erroneous as it is. It would be unfair for blacks to force them into servitude against their conscience.

 

[NoMoreGames]

You’ve got some quoting issues, bud

But just because it has not becoem reasonable in terms of society does not mean that it is not reasonable in terms of what it is.

I think you explained the african american question but it was kind of broken and confusing, can you explain it again?

 

[Benadam]

You’ve got some quoting issues, bud

yeah, I can only think for so long.

But just because it has not becoem reasonable in terms of society does not mean that it is not reasonable in terms of what it is.

I think you explained the african american question but it was kind of broken and confusing, can you explain it again?

If blacks were able to force law that the society was not able to accept even though they brought to light the proper disposition then that would be unfair to that society. Even an erroneous conscience is sacred…I left that part out
sorry…but to answer further, does a society deserve respect in regards of their ability to reason? Is it fair to force laws onto a society that seem unreasonable to it?

 

[NoMoreGames]

I think it’s really funny that the post i make fun of your quoting mine goes haywire

If blacks were able to force law that the society was not able to accept even though they brought to light the proper disposition then that would be unfair to that society. Even an erroneous conscience is sacred…I left that part out
sorry…but to answer further, does a society deserve respect in regards of their ability to reason? Is it fair to force laws onto a society that seem unreasonable to it?

I think it is more unfair that blacks would not have rights than it is to force rights. For the blacks, it would consume their every day life, but those were not black would hardly be effected. Their rights would not be compromised as much as the black’s were before the new laws. There need to be some sort of balance. I think partial rights vs. some uncomfortableness is better than no rights vs. complete choice.

Laws are passed all the time that people don’t agree with. It will never cease to amaze me how people fight a law that promotes love but will not lift a finger when another ones sends them into war And I don’t think it’s right to say society as whole is unreasonable to gay marriage. Obama is president after all (i know he doesn’t support gay marriage but his support for unions is a start).

 

[Benadam]

If blacks were able to force law that the society was not able to accept even though they brought to light the proper disposition then that would be unfair to that society. Even an erroneous conscience is sacred…I left that part out
sorry…but to answer further, does a society deserve respect in regards of their ability to reason? Is it fair to force laws onto a society that seem unreasonable to it?

I don’t doubt that our society has come to find it reaonable to include same sex unions as marriage. I was pointing out a fundamental difference in the transition. A transition that forces acts against conscience relative to a transition that prohibits acts .

 

[SacredHeartFan]

To start of, I’m not being sarcastic. That being said, are those who are against gay marriage also against the freedom of religion? I don’t like how the emails this site sends out places it in the same category as things like abortion, and euthanasia. Those two violate human life, which is universal to all humans. Gay marriage, on the other hand, does not take away life nor limit the rights of others. I’m curious as to why people believe that gay marriage should not be allowed in the country when it falls more so under the category of freedom of religion.

It is my opinion that the state may NOT say anything about marriage. They have no authority over it. The state should say nothing about gay marriage. It should be a personal desicion. It is the church’s mission to not allow it within her boundries and discourage it in people’s lives. The state should have no authority on this matter.

 

[Benadam]

I

think it’s really funny that the post i make fun of your quoting mine goes haywire

 

[RyanL]

Laws are passed all the time that people don’t agree with. It will never cease to amaze me how people fight a law that promotes love but will not lift a finger when another ones sends them into war

I haven’t read the whole thread, so please excuse me if you’ve already addressed this…but…

…how, exactly, does the government “promote love” with so-called gay marriage? Would the people not love each other without it?

It’s just that the way you put it, it just seems like one of those trite platitudes that people use to bludgeon others with…

And I don’t think it’s right to say society as whole is unreasonable to gay marriage. Obama is president after all (i know he doesn’t support gay marriage but his support for unions is a start).

Obama supports what’s politically expedient. If you think otherwise, you’ve put too much trust in princes.

God Bless,
RyanL