Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter GaryTaylor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia said:
He brings up the point about bisexuals. I can see a case going to court now with a bisexual who has both a female and male partner and argues their rights is being infringed or that they are being discriminated against because they can not get married to both their partners. A case like that may be an opening case for marriage being redefined again for polygamous marriage
Click to expand...
I think we should do everything in our power to prevent gay marriage from becoming the law of the land, but personally I believe that it and all other attempted degradations of marriage will be eliminated when enough rosaries have been said. Not a Church position, just my opinion.
 
josh987654321 said:
What do people think of this reasoning I am trying below to defeat same sex marriage being law?

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.

Now given the sexual nature of a homosexual union compared to a hetrosexual one, to try and argue for equality when it comes to marriage, would be an unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, unjust and prejudicial treatment being to equate two things that are obviously unequal.

Therefore, homosexual unions being recognised as marriage is a discrimination against hetrosexual marriage.

So by this logic, to legalise homosexual marriage, would be to legalise and enforce discrimination, now Im sure there are laws against that arn’t there?

So to legalise discrimination should be logically unlawful.

Anyway would really like people to tweak this kind of reasoning or let me know of their idea’s, as using this kind of reasoning could help us oppose same sex marriage with regards to civil law, I don’t think we should deny homosexuals the union by law, but we should definatly be denying them ‘marriage’ with regards to the law.

Thank you for reading
Josh
Click to expand...
This does make sense and the thing is, there would be absolutely no reason, if marriage were redefined to not allow Polygamy. What argument could be made against a man for instance, having 100 wives? And yet, as people point out, those marriages could produce children readily.

So even though, the Father marrying Son analogy is routinely frowned at by Same Sex Marriage advocates, one can’t really do that with Polygamy. So, comparisons do serve a valid purpose and where are the lines drawn?
 
BroomWagon said:
This does make sense and the thing is, there would be absolutely no reason, if marriage were redefined to not allow Polygamy. What argument could be made against a man for instance, having 100 wives? And yet, as people point out, those marriages could produce children readily.

So even though, the Father marrying Son analogy is routinely frowned at by Same Sex Marriage advocates, **one can’t really do that with Polygamy. **So, comparisons do serve a valid purpose and where are the lines drawn?
Click to expand...
Father marries daughters, mother marries sons. And in marriages involving bisexuals there are even more hideous examples, if that were possible. Truly, hell does begin on earth.😦
 
rossum said:
Oppressed? Matthew Shepard Foundation.

rossum
Click to expand...
After reading what happened to Mathew Shepard, I find it truly horrific what those men did to that poor man.

Don’t use that example to promote homosexuality, if homosexuals commited a horrific act similar to this against a hetrosexual, we would not use that for an argument as no one would condone such horrific actions regardless of sexual nature.

Like I have always been saying, we are against homosexuality, not homosexuals, we oppose homosexuality, not homosexuals.

You and many others are confused, you think that we are all opposing homosexuals, we are in no way opposing homosexuals, we are opposing homosexuality, you seem to think that by embracing homosexuality is the only way to embrace homosexuals, homosexuals giving into their desires is not the answer Rossum.

Like I have said before, in previous generations people have rejected homosexuals in an effort to reject homosexuality, and if this is still happening it must stop becuase it is just so very wrong.

But because of this, people are now embracing homosexuality in an effort to embrace homosexuals, which is also wrong.

It’s only right and just to embrace homosexuals, but it’s unjust and wrong to embrace homosexuality through same sex marriage.

Again it’s truly horrific what those evil men did to Mathew Shepard, I don’t know why you would use that for an argument, no one here opposing homosexuality, would or should ever condone what those evil men did to Mathew Shepard.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
You don’t seem to be making the distinction between homosexuals and homosexuality, it’s only right and just to argue for equality when it comes to homosexuals and hetrosexuals, none would oppose equality between the two.

However you are wrong to try and argue for equality between homosexuality and hetrosexuality through same sex marriage etc. to argue for equality between homosexuality and hetrosexuality is just as much of an injust as discriminating between homosexuals and hetrosexuals.

You need to distinguish between homosexuals and homosexuality Rossum, we are all in opposition to homosexuality, not homosexuals and to oppose homosexuality doesn’t mean opposing homosexuals, just like to argure for equality for homosexuals doesn’t mean equality for homosexuality, yet you seem to be arguing for equality with homosexuality intentionaly or in an effort for equality when it comes to homosexuals.

If you are arguing for equality between homosexuals and hetrosexuals, than I applaud you Rossum, but not when you argue for equality between homosexuality and hetrosexuality through same sex marriage etc, because that is an injustice.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
_Abyssinia said:
Florist sued for refusing service to gay couple
Click to expand...
You know me _Abyssinia, Im very much against the acts of homosexuality, or the idea of supporting it.

With this situation Im really not sure how to view it, at what point do you draw the line, I dont want to encourage homosexuality but I dont want to oppress homosexuals who give into those desires either, so im not too sure what my view is on this article.

I think it’s only right to discriminate between homosexuality and heterosexuality, especially in adoption or education cases, however it’s not okay to discriminate between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

In the case of the adoption agency, that was very wrong that they could be sued for doing what they did.

In this case with trivial things like a flower shop, it is kind of pointless I think, as she would serve flowers to many other customers who were commiting sin, it’s kind of like saying I refuse to serve flowers to sinners.

Id really need more information to make a decision on this one I think, because with the adoption agency, that was right and just to refuse adoption to homosexual couples over heterosexual couples and the law was completely unjust in penalising them for that.

However with the florist, I don’t know, I think she might have crossed the line a bit with that one, we shouldn’t oppress sinners, nor should we encourage them.

So she has basically said I refuse to serve sinners, which I don’t think is right, It’s different in adoption and education cases though, in those cases I completely agree with what they did, but in this case of what the florist did, I dont agree.

I think we shouldn’t be oppressing sinners nor should we be encouraging sin, I think this florist is more oppressing sinners rather than opposing sin.

Thanks for sharing that with us _Abyssinia.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
kelvinf said:
I can’t access the link.
Click to expand...
It is only a short piece:

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide wedding flowers to a same-sex couple.

The complaint was filed in Benton County on Tuesday against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland. The lawsuit is in response to a March 1 incident where she refused service to longtime customer Robert Ingersoll. Stutzman did not return a call Tuesday night seeking comment. Ferguson had sent a letter on March 28 asking her to comply with the law, but said Stutzman’s attorneys responded Monday saying she would challenge any state action to enforce the law. Washington state voters upheld a same-sex marriage law in November, and the law took effect in December. The state’s anti-discrimination laws were expanded in 2006 to include sexual orientation.

Ferguson seeks a permanent injunction requiring the store to comply with the state’s consumer protection laws and seeks at least $2,000 in fines.
I note that the suit is filed under consumer protection law. That is the sort of law that forbids “No Catholics” signs in shops.

rossum
 
josh987654321 said:
You know me _Abyssinia, Im very much against the acts of homosexuality, or the idea of supporting it.

With this situation Im really not sure how to view it, at what point do you draw the line, I dont want to encourage homosexuality but I dont want to oppress homosexuals who give into those desires either, so im not too sure what my view is on this article.

I think it’s only right to discriminate between homosexuality and heterosexuality, especially in adoption or education cases, however it’s not okay to discriminate between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

In the case of the adoption agency, that was very wrong that they could be sued for doing what they did.

In this case with trivial things like a flower shop, it is kind of pointless I think, as she would serve flowers to many other customers who were commiting sin, it’s kind of like saying I refuse to serve flowers to sinners.

Id really need more information to make a decision on this one I think, because with the adoption agency, that was right and just to refuse adoption to homosexual couples over heterosexual couples and the law was completely unjust in penalising them for that.

However with the florist, I don’t know, I think she might have crossed the line a bit with that one, we shouldn’t oppress sinners, nor should we encourage them.

So she has basically said I refuse to serve sinners, which I don’t think is right, It’s different in adoption and education cases though, in those cases I completely agree with what they did, but in this case of what the florist did, I dont agree.

I think we shouldn’t be oppressing sinners nor should we be encouraging sin, I think this florist is more oppressing sinners rather than opposing sin.

Thanks for sharing that with us _Abyssinia.

Thank you for reading
Josh
Click to expand...
I am also still trying to build an opinion on certain kinds of “discrimination”.

BTW, you refer to her as refusing to serve sinner but that might not be her thinking. Lo, we all have different reasons why we oppose homosexuality. Some say it’s not procreative and nothing else. Others believe sodomy is intrisically evil. While some people think homosexuality is repulsive and bizarre etc.

So I wouldn’t conclude that she is refusing to sell something to someone because of the person’s sin. But that could still make sense though. While I would give water to 2 gays who are thirsty, I wouldn’t necessarily offer them a roof.

I fundamentally believe in individual freedom. People should be free to make decisions as they find appropriate. This is not a public shop that is owned by the public, but rather, a private shop and they should be able to control who enters the shop or not imo.

If a private shop denies to sell something to me because I am a Catholic or because of my skin colour, I would simply go to another shop. Certainly, it becomes complex when every shop refuses to sell something to you because of your religion or sexual orientation.

On the one hand, I believe in individual freedom. We shouldn’t force a private entity to do what they don’t want to do. On the other hand, victims of such refusals would feel discriminated against. So I really don’t know.

When it comes to sexual orientation, don’t ask, don’t tell is a very good policy.

When it come to religion, some Christians could be identified in public based on what they wear and could thus be discriminated against.

So it’s not that easy to come to a conclusion on this issue.
 
rossum said:
It is only a short piece:

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide wedding flowers to a same-sex couple.

The complaint was filed in Benton County on Tuesday against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland. The lawsuit is in response to a March 1 incident where she refused service to longtime customer Robert Ingersoll. Stutzman did not return a call Tuesday night seeking comment. Ferguson had sent a letter on March 28 asking her to comply with the law, but said Stutzman’s attorneys responded Monday saying she would challenge any state action to enforce the law. Washington state voters upheld a same-sex marriage law in November, and the law took effect in December. The state’s anti-discrimination laws were expanded in 2006 to include sexual orientation.

Ferguson seeks a permanent injunction requiring the store to comply with the state’s consumer protection laws and seeks at least $2,000 in fines.

rossum
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
kelvinf said:
I am also still trying to build an opinion on certain kinds of “discrimination”.

BTW, you refer to her as refusing to serve sinner but that might not be her thinking. Lo, we all have different reasons why we oppose homosexuality. Some say it’s not procreative and nothing else. Others believe sodomy is intrisically evil. While some people think homosexuality is repulsive and bizarre etc.

So I wouldn’t conclude that she is refusing to sell something to someone because of the person’s sin. But that could still make sense though. While I would give water to 2 gays who are thirsty, I wouldn’t necessarily offer them a roof.

I fundamentally believe in individual freedom. People should be free to make decisions as they find appropriate. This is not a public shop that is owned by the public, but rather, a private shop and they should be able to control who enters the shop or not imo.

If a private shop denies to sell something to me because I am a Catholic or because of my skin colour, I would simply go to another shop. Certainly, it becomes complex when every shop refuses to sell something to you because of your religion or sexual orientation.

On the one hand, I believe in individual freedom. We shouldn’t force a private entity to do what they don’t want to do. On the other hand, victims of such refusals would feel discriminated against. So I really don’t know.

When it comes to sexual orientation, don’t ask, don’t tell is a very good policy.

When it come to religion, some Christians could be identified in public based on what they wear and could thus be discriminated against.

So it’s not that easy to come to a conclusion on this issue.
Click to expand...
I have changed my view of it.

We shouldn’t encourage sin but we shouldn’t oppress the sinner either, but we most certainly shouldn’t be forced to participate in sin by law.

When I first replied, I didn’t know that the flowers were for a homosexual wedding, this changes the situation as Im not sure whether we would classify that as particiaption towards a homosexual wedding, I think we might though, and the florist is right in refusing to participate in such a union.

So therefore my view on this has changed simply because the flowers were for a homosexual wedding, if they were for something else than the florist would be wrong, but in this case the florist is correct in refusing service for a homosexual wedding.

I think it’s important not to participate in sin and the law should not require anyone to participate in sin.

When I wrote my above post, I didn’t realise that the flowers were for a homosexual wedding, this changes my view, because if it were anything else id say that the florist was wrong, but in a way, because it is for a wedding, she is sort of providing means for them to commit a sin and therefore the florist is in just grounds to discriminate in that regard I think.

Now Rossum, if you percieve something to be sinful, would it be right for the law to force you to participate in sin?

If it was sinful for Protestants to serve Catholics, do you think they should force Protestants by law to serve Catholics? I think the law should keep out of it and only step in when it is in regards to neccessities, as the law should stop people from oppressing sinners with the refusal of neccessities, but they most certainly should not be requiring them to participate in sin.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
josh987654321 said:
Now Rossum, if you percieve something to be sinful, would it be right for the law to force you to participate in sin?
Click to expand...
Sin is a Christian concept, not a Buddhist one. In that sense there is nothing “sinful” at all. Of course, the down side is that there is no forgiveness of sin either.

All of us are responsible for our own actions, and we reap the consequences of those actions. Sin does not enter into the equation, just actions and consequences.
If it was sinful for Protestants to serve Catholics, do you think they should force Protestants by law to serve Catholics?
Click to expand...
I have big problems legislating specifics of religious belief where there is no good non-religious reason to do so.
I think the law should keep out of it and only step in when it is in regards to neccessities.
Click to expand...
Anti-discrimination law seems to me to be a necessity; there are good non-religious reasons for such a law.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Sin is a Christian concept, not a Buddhist one. In that sense there is nothing “sinful” at all. Of course, the down side is that there is no forgiveness of sin either.

All of us are responsible for our own actions, and we reap the consequences of those actions. Sin does not enter into the equation, just actions and consequences.
Click to expand...
Some actions don’t have a consequence to those who performed such action, sometimes people don’t reap the consequences for certain actions, sometimes it is others who reap the consequences for our actions, kind of like how Jesus reaped the consequences for our actions.
I have big problems legislating specifics of religious belief where there is no good non-religious reason to do so.
Click to expand...
You make a good point.
Anti-discrimination law seems to me to be a necessity; there are good non-religious reasons for such a law.
Click to expand...
rossum
Click to expand...
You make alot of good points Rossum.

The hardest thing about this, is that I cannot in good concience participate in sin, because of my beleifs I believe homosexuality to be sinful, I think it’s wrong to equate homosexuality and heterosexuality under marriage as one is the designed use of God’s creation and the other is not, one is sinful and the other is not, so if the Law requires us to view or treat homosexuality equal to heterosexuality, what am I to do?

If there is equality between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union, than whats to stop the law from persecuting me if I speak against homosexuality? or if I refuse to praticipate or provide means for a homosexual to act on homosexuality, such as a ceremony, celebrating homosexuality?

Because if I believe that there is nothing to celebrate with a homosexual union, as I view celebrating homosexuality as spitting in God’s face and on his beloved creation/design, what will I do when the law states that it is unlawful to have or act on my views in any way?

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
rossum said:
Sin is a Christian concept, not a Buddhist one. In that sense there is nothing “sinful” at all. Of course, the down side is that there is no forgiveness of sin either.

All of us are responsible for our own actions, and we reap the consequences of those actions. Sin does not enter into the equation, just actions and consequences.

I have big problems legislating specifics of religious belief where there is no good non-religious reason to do so.

Anti-discrimination law seems to me to be a necessity; there are good non-religious reasons for such a law.

rossum
Click to expand...
Currently anti discrimination laws and laws protecting religious liberty appear to be in conflict which is why homosexual marriage and religious liberty are not compatible
 
_Abyssinia said:
Currently anti discrimination laws and laws protecting religious liberty appear to be in conflict which is why homosexual marriage and religious liberty are not compatible
Click to expand...
Very true, this is why the debate has gone on for as long as it has, it seems to be a no win situation for the government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top