Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[GangGreen]

From the Buddhist perspective Christian morality lays too much emphasis on “You shall not commit adultery” and too little emphasis on “You shall not kill”. Buddhism avoids injury to life, and as part of that most Buddhists are reluctant to force others to conform to their morality. Since I do not want to be forced to marry the wrong sex, neither would I want to force someone else to do that.

We are getting back to the golden rule. Adam and Steve sharing a house and getting married do not cause any injury to me. What justification do I have for forcing them to do something that they do not wish to do in order to satisfy my ideas of what is correct behaviour? Adam and Steve may well be Christian and worshipping in an MCC or Quaker church. Does a Buddhist automatically have a right to force Christians to conform to Buddhist morality? Do Catholics and Protestants automatically have the right to force the other to conform to their morality.

In general terms, “Yuck! I think it’s icky,” is not sufficient reason to make something illegal. Catholic morals apply to Catholics; they do not apply to civil law, which is what President Obama was talking about.

rossum

and what about all of those Catholics who don’t believe in gay marriage, but are forced to provide services for them? Photographers, bakers, florists, catering halls, etc. Are they not injured because of the threat of lawsuit if they deny services to a gay couple who wants their services for their “wedding”?

There is a trickle down effect beyond the piece of paper saying that they’re married and it goes beyond just that example.

 

[rossum]

and what about all of those Catholics who don’t believe in gay marriage, but are forced to provide services for them? Photographers, bakers, florists, catering halls, etc. Are they not injured because of the threat of lawsuit if they deny services to a gay couple who wants their services for their “wedding”?

What about all of those Catholics who don’t believe in remarriage of divorcees, but are forced to provide services for them? Photographers, bakers, florists, catering halls, etc. Are they not injured because of the threat of lawsuit if they deny services to a couple of divorcees who wants their services for their “wedding”?

If you don’t want to provide services for same sex weddings then don’t go into the Bridal Wear business. If you are running a business then you are providing a service to all the public, in accordance with the laws governing businesses. Suppose there was an extreme Protestant, say in Northern Ireland, who put a sign in her shop window, “No Catholics” because she had religious objections to Catholicism? That sort of thing would come under what you are proposing.

As with most things, one person’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins. It is up to the law, and the courts to determine where those boundaries lie in those cases where there is a dispute.

rossum

 

[kozlosap]

Those “conservatives” you speak of are what we now call RINO’s. And what about the children born to Miscegenation? They were are constantly mocked and teased and bullied because they have no sense of racial identity and other children can see that. To introduce a child into the world into that manner with full consent is child abuse

This post has to be the scariest I’ve ever read on these forums.

 

[Presurmksdimnds]

If you don’t want to provide services for same sex weddings then don’t go into the Bridal Wear business. If you are running a business then you are providing a service to all the public, in accordance with the laws governing businesses.

That’s an effective way to marginalize an entire segment of the population.

Dhimmitude, anyone?

Could you imagine if we had said this to Muslims?

“Don’t want to handle pork? Don’t go into the food business…”

As with most things, one person’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins.

And where exactly does the Christian’s freedom of conscience begin? Or does that stay shoved in the backroom where no one can be offended by it?

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Inevitable ‘Inevitability Argument’

Even the casual Facebook and/or Twitter user has likely come across something akin to the following exchange in recent days:

Proponent of traditional marriage

— “I believe that marriage has a definition and that is one man, one woman. I don’t hate gay people and I’m fine with them having similar rights when it comes to matters involving their loved ones.”

Proponent of re-defining marriage (or just someone who never took a class in argumentation/logic/reasoning) — “Dude, it’s inevitable. Give it up, bro!”

Now, I’m not claiming that every exchange runs this smoothly or that either side is even fairly represented in my hypothetical scenario. But this whole “inevitability” argument for why those of us who believe marriage is an important institution — one worth defending, whatever the prevailing cultural sentiments may be — should shut up and stand aside strikes me as underwhelming and something less than compelling.

Other (relatively) recent inevitabilities:

1. The Titanic would never sink
2. The 2007 undefeated Patriots would beat the NY Giants in the Super Bowl
3. Israel would be defeated in 1948 by an army more than 5x its size intent on destroying them
4. The USSR would be the world’s dominant force in the 21st century
5. Laser-discs would take over for VHS

The contemporary understanding of “progress” evidently has been reduced to “whatever is different than what used to be.” Or perhaps, “whatever those Scandinavian countries with free health care have already done.”

And when there are examples of actual bigotry and exclusion from our nation’s recent past — i.e. blacks not being able to marry whites in certain parts of the country — it’s comforting for those with some combination of a progressive worldview, short attention span and public school education to nod knowingly along when someone drops the “Inevitable” bomb on one of those “Bible-thumpers.”

I’m not here interested in debating the finer-point merits or pros/cons of the marriage issue. My humble agenda item is simply to point out that it is morally insufficient to use as the basis of the rationale for one’s supporting of (or remaining neutral to) the radical re-definition of the institution of marriage a “Well, it’s probably going to happen anyway” argument.

This intellectually-lazy line of defense presupposes that both sides are relatively indifferent to the outcome and that things have been left up to the dialectical pull of human history – that it’s all some sort of ****-shoot and that no concerted, socio-political effort has been undertaken for decades by those seeking to re-define marriage. And that those of us on the other side of the debate are merely being obstinate for obstinacy’s sake.

The laws may all change. The courts may all rule in favor of gay marriage. Popular opinion may be swayed to a super-majority.

So what?

Nobody has any business to use the word “progress” unless he has a definite creed and a cast-iron code of morals. Nobody can be progressive without being doctrinal; I might almost say that nobody can be progressive without being infallible at any rate, without believing in some infallibility. For progress by its very name indicates a direction; and the moment we are in the least doubtful about the direction, we become in the same degree doubtful about the progress. Never perhaps since the beginning of the world has there been an age that had less right to use the word “progress” than we…

I do not, therefore, say that the word “progress” is unmeaning; I say it is unmeaning without the previous definition of a moral doctrine, and that it can only be applied to groups of persons who hold that doctrine in common. Progress is not an illegitimate word, but it is logically evident that it is illegitimate for us. It is a sacred word, a word which could only rightly be used by rigid believers and in the ages of faith.

—GK Chesterton
spectator.org/blog/2013/03/29/the-inevitable-inevitability-a

 

[rossum]

That’s an effective way to marginalize an entire segment of the population.

Dhimmitude, anyone?

Could you imagine if we had said this to Muslims?

“Don’t want to handle pork? Don’t go into the food business…”

Easy. Open a Kosher grocery. Jews have been doing it for a long time.

And where exactly does the Christian’s freedom of conscience begin? Or does that stay shoved in the backroom where no one can be offended by it?

I can just see the signs outside shops in parts of Northern Ireland: “No Catholics”. Extreme Protestants also have freedom of religion. Are you happy with that?

rossum

 

[scipio337]

Easy. Open a Kosher grocery. Jews have been doing it for a long time.

I can just see the signs outside shops in parts of Northern Ireland: “No Catholics”. Extreme Protestants also have freedom of religion. Are you happy with that?

rossum

Now we can conflate sexual behavior with free exercise of religion and ethnicity?

How long do we have to keep pushing this false analogy?

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

This post has to be the scariest I’ve ever read on these forums.

Pay no attention to him. I suspect he might be a troll.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Pay no attention to him. I suspect he might be a troll.

Intended to make traditional marriage proponents look like racists, to boot. he’s bannded anyway. Seeya.

 

[rossum]

Now we can conflate sexual behavior with free exercise of religion and ethnicity?

No. We are exploring the limits of religious freedom and where it may clash with other freedoms. Religious freedom is not an absolute and has to fit in with other freedoms, such as freedom from discrimination. Hence my example from Northern Ireland. There are people who would use religious reasons to discriminate against Catholics. Are they free to exercise their religious freedom at the expense of your freedom from discrimination?

How long do we have to keep pushing this false analogy?

It is not a false analogy. It is an exact example of where two different freedoms clash.

rossum

 

[JamesCaruso]

From the Buddhist perspective Christian morality lays too much emphasis on “You shall not commit adultery” and too little emphasis on “You shall not kill”. Buddhism avoids injury to life, and as part of that most Buddhists are reluctant to force others to conform to their morality. Since I do not want to be forced to marry the wrong sex, neither would I want to force someone else to do that.

Buddhists are less strong against killing than the Catholic Church, which could not be any stronger. Many Buddhist states have the death penalty. Many Buddhists believe in fighting/killing for a righteous cause. The Church only allows war when it meets the criteria of a just war which is in essence to protect human life. The Church, for instance, was against the invasion of Iraq. Also, the Church is against the death penalty unless it is needful to protect human life, which is says is a very rare situation. Buddhists are known to kill themselves as a form of protest. The Church is against suicide for any reason. The Church can go no further in its position against killing without saying we should no longer protect life to the best of our ability.

No one is forcing anyone to marry the wrong sex, for the simple reason that no one is forcing anyone to marry. The question is about whether the court/government will honor the centuries old tradition and definition of marriage, an institution authored by God as a sacred sacrament, or will it force its own definition in place of the traditional one. Words have meaning, and just because you do not agree with that meaning does not mean you have the right to change it and to offend others in the process.

Make up your own word for what you want to do, do not offend us and disrespect our meaning. If gays want to call sex with the same sex (something we believe to be unnatural and perverted) parallèlementage, the word is available. The word marriage is not available, and if the court/government commandeers it, it is an assault against their own citizens and against religion, in favor of what becomes the state’s own established religion of statist secularism.

If the US government wants to confer tax benefits on those joined in parallèlementage, then let it amend the law to give those benefits to both married folks and parallèlementaged folks, but just leave us alone to practice our religion the way we want to practice it without trying to redefine what it is that we believe in. The courts are interfering with the free practice of religion, and with the government’s sworn duty to not establish a religion of its own.

And a final word of caution, if the court/government in some way does bless gay unions it weakens the country’s moral fiber and puts at risk the entire nation’s security and well being. Moral decay is an insidious disease. The court/government should think long and hard before they sets this wheel in motion.

 

[scipio337]

No. We are exploring the limits of religious freedom and where it may clash with other freedoms. Religious freedom is not an absolute and has to fit in with other freedoms, such as freedom from discrimination. Hence my example from Northern Ireland. There are people who would use religious reasons to discriminate against Catholics. Are they free to exercise their religious freedom at the expense of your freedom from discrimination?

It is not a false analogy. It is an exact example of where two different freedoms clash.

rossum

There is no “freedom to have others accept my accept personal behavior”.

And you’re still conflating.

This is the ultimate goal of now decades of court cases: not equal protection under the eyes of the law, but protected status for behavior, and to force its acceptance by judial decree.

Nearly every state that has same sex marriage today had domestic partnerships or civil unions. “Equal protection” isn’t the goal.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

This is the ultimate goal of now decades of court cases: not equal protection under the eyes of the law, but protected status for behavior, and to force its acceptance by judial decree.

Are you sure you’re not arguing on the side of same-sex marriage here?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

What about all of those Catholics who don’t believe in remarriage of divorcees, but are forced to provide services for them? Photographers, bakers, florists, catering halls, etc. Are they not injured because of the threat of lawsuit if they deny services to a couple of divorcees who wants their services for their “wedding”?

This is a contorted example to suit your argument. These service providers who may be Catholic (many Christians are also against SS"M"’ btw) don’t (have to) interview their clients’ marriage history. It would be plain to see an opposite sexed couple presenting themselves, unless of course one of them is cross dressing and/or has had a sex change to pass as the opposite gender.

It is like the false argument repeated by gay advocates that to justify adherence to traditional marriage of opposite sexes the configuration of which favors natural creation of children, ministers and justices of the peace who marry couples need to test for sterility and interview for contraception plans. That would be an administrative nightmare, not pragmatic and not ever necessary with what has always been marriageability between a man and a woman, not constrained by age and consanguinity limits and not encumbered with an already valid marriage with another living spouse.

Common sense seems to have left those whose driving interest is the “pursuit of happiness” above societal and practical good.

If you don’t want to provide services for same sex weddings then don’t go into the Bridal Wear business. If you are running a business then you are providing a service to all the public, in accordance with the laws governing businesses. Suppose there was an extreme Protestant, say in Northern Ireland, who put a sign in her shop window, “No Catholics” because she had religious objections to Catholicism? That sort of thing would come under what you are proposing.

You just gave a reason why gay civil “marriage” is not good for the economy. It is bad for commerce because you count on more business people to be unprincipled.

To make your point, you had to use the extreme and very localized case of that Protestant in Northern Ireland, motivated by hate for Catholics.

As with most things, one person’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins. It is up to the law, and the courts to determine where those boundaries lie in those cases where there is a dispute.

rossum

Blah blah, more of the same drivel from you. Your repetitions in this forum only hold sway for the already converted and your aim is obviously to win the undiscerning who relinquish all authority to the state, which becomes their god. A god that has no absolutes, just interests of the most influential group at a given time, passing bad laws or replacing good laws with bad.

Law can be fickle. Law can be wrong.

Through your postings, it is obvious you wish to propagate pro-gay “marriage” views beyond your corner of the world (in the UK) to reach wider populations and nations, especially the U.S.A. Gay agenda is getting more and more ambitious. From “we want to be left alone,” to nationalized same sex “marriage” law, preferably recognized internationally, so that rich same sex partners like Edith Windsor can have full financial advantage. Not to mention open borders for the benefit of immigrating gay “married” partners. Just peachy. Upwardly mobile and global.

 

[josh987654321]

From the Buddhist perspective Christian morality lays too much emphasis on “You shall not commit adultery” and too little emphasis on “You shall not kill”. Buddhism avoids injury to life, and as part of that most Buddhists are reluctant to force others to conform to their morality.

With what you have said Buddhism seems to avoid physical injury to life, how does it feel about mental injury? it seems to be from a selfish perspective, as yes this issue of same sex marriage probably wont affect me, but it will affect many others, especially the children they plan to raise in trying to imitate a hetrosexual family, with what I said before it should be clear that a homosexual couple raising children would be to cripple them, most people respond to that with “what about single parents” and the difference being that single parents did not intentionaly set it up that way to cripple their children, however homosexual couples are intentionaly setting it up that way for the children they plan to raise, every child has a right to a mum and dad, so I will fight this to see that they have it, it’s such a shame when people become so heartless in regards to the importance of marriage, because marriage should give children the right to a mum and dad to the best of the parents ability.

We are getting back to the golden rule. Adam and Steve sharing a house and getting married do not cause any injury to me. What justification do I have for forcing them to do something that they do not wish to do in order to satisfy my ideas of what is correct behaviour? Adam and Steve may well be Christian and worshipping in an MCC or Quaker church. Does a Buddhist automatically have a right to force Christians to conform to Buddhist morality? Do Catholics and Protestants automatically have the right to force the other to conform to their morality.

The difference being that this issue of homosexual marriage should be clearly disordered and Immoral, the only reason it isn’t is because peoples morality have become so warped, or they are removing their morality from the law.

In general terms, “Yuck! I think it’s icky,” is not sufficient reason to make something illegal. Catholic morals apply to Catholics; they do not apply to civil law, which is what President Obama was talking about.

rossum

So who’s morals do apply to civil law? if people have all of these different kinds of morality, what kind of morals should we apply to civil law? should we just say “look there are all of these views of morality and we don’t want to force our morals onto others so lets just remove morality altogether from civil law”?

You say yourself “Yuck! I think it’s icky,” so your morality on some level say’s that this kind of behaviour is wrong, why would you encourage it through changing the law? why would you think something is wrong and than say “but I will encourage them to do it because I don’t want to force my morals onto others”? imagine if everyone had that attitude, “hey I think killing is wrong, but I think in regards to the law we should still provide them with the guns and ammunition to kill, because I don’t want to force my morals onto others.”

You are right that people can have very warped views of morality, however you cannot accomodate all views of morality with regards to civil law, so who’s morality do you accomodate? why do you think people should remove all morality with regards to civil law so that they can accomodate everyone? the danger with removing the morality from religion in regards to state is that nearly anything can be justified, such as same sex marriage, we all know it’s wrong, but they are trying to justify it, by trying to remove our morality from our laws.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So who’s morals do apply to civil law? if people have all of these different kinds of morality, what kind of morals should we apply to civil law? should we just say “look there are all of these views of morality and we don’t want to force our morals onto others so lets just remove morality altogether from civil law”?

The Supreme Court made it clear in Lawrence vs Texas that moral opinions alone are not sufficient justification to restrict liberty and narrow civil rights. In other words, you need a (good) secular reason and it needs to be applied equally.

 

[josh987654321]

The Supreme Court made it clear in Lawrence vs Texas that moral opinions alone are not sufficient justification to restrict liberty and narrow civil rights. In other words, you need a (good) secular reason and it needs to be applied equally.

The fact that the acts of homosexuality are very different to the acts of hetrosexuality?

The fact that a homosexual union is very different to a hetrosexual union and should not be equated under the same name as ‘marriage’?

The fact that it’s just stupid to try and equate the acts of homsoexuality to the acts of hetrosexuality because they are two very different acts and unions?

The fact that marriage is there to provide children with the right to a mum and a dad to the best of the parents ability?

What else do you need?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The fact that the acts of homosexuality are very different to the acts of hetrosexuality? The fact that a homosexual union is very different to a hetrosexual union and should not be equated under the same name as ‘marriage’? The fact that it’s just stupid to try and equate the acts of homsoexuality to the acts of hetrosexuality because they are two very different acts and unions?

“Different” and “stupid” are subjective and are not justifications for the restriction of liberty and narrowing of civil rights. The Supreme Court is not going to base a decision on whether or not something is “different” or “stupid.”

The fact that marriage is there to provide children with the right to a mum and a dad to the best of the parents ability?

There isn’t a right to mother and father and I think it should be clear by now that the Supreme Court doesn’t accept the premise that the ability and/or willingness to reproduce naturally is is a constitutionally legitimate requirement for marriage. Especially since that standard is not applied to heterosexuals.

 

[josh987654321]

“Different” and “stupid” are subjective and are not justifications for the restriction of liberty and narrowing of civil rights. The Supreme Court is not going to base a decision on whether or not something is “different” or “stupid.”

“different” is very much justification for homosexuality and hetrosexuality to be separate under the law, therefore with marriage they should not be under the same name.

How is “different” not a justification to oppose a false equality?

There isn’t a right to mother and father and I think it should be clear by now that the Supreme Court doesn’t accept the premise that the ability to bear children is a constitutional requirement for marriage.

Every child has a right to a mother and a father, it’s not there because so many people are heartless when it comes to marriage, anything other than a mum and a dad is crippling a child, full credits to those who can rise above their raisings but many can’t, and it is wrong to intentionaly cripple children, a homosexual couple who plans to raise a child in marriage and family, will be intentionaly crippling a child, unlike single parents who are not intentionaly crippling their children.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

“different” is very much justification for homosexuality and hetrosexuality to be separate under the law, therefore with marriage they should not be under the same name. How is “different” not a justification to oppose a false equality?

Because they are not different in any way that can be constitutionally regulated.

Every child has a right to a mother and a father…

You may view that as a moral right but it is not a legal right and it certainly is not a position the Supreme Court will hold.