Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[rossum]

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

Agreed. As is usual in these cases, it will take some time to work out all the legal ramifications of the change. Freedoms often clash, and in a civil society it is up to the law to resolve those clashes.

As is usually the case, I suspect that each side will get less than everything they want, but both sides will get something.

rossum

 

[_Abyssinia]

Agreed. As is usual in these cases, it will take some time to work out all the legal ramifications of the change. Freedoms often clash, and in a civil society it is up to the law to resolve those clashes.

As is usually the case, I suspect that each side will get less than everything they want, but both sides will get something.

rossum

I have said it before on here on a different thread and I will say it again, religious liberty can not be comprised

 

[_Abyssinia]

Oklahoma House passes gay marriage resolution 84-0, backing federal Defense of Marriage act

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have said it before on here on a different thread and I will say it again, religious liberty can not be comprised

But it can be rolled over, which is what the current government is determined to do, and is doing.

 

[_Abyssinia]

But it can be rolled over, which is what the current government is determined to do, and is doing.

Anti discrimination laws forcing businesses to provide products for homosexual ‘wedding’ ceremonies reminds because of the Obama admin forcing businesses to provide contraception, abortifacients, sterilization etc against the religious conscience of business owners

 

[_Abyssinia]

School cancels Santorum speech over marriage views

Rick Santorum comments on cancellation of Grosse Pointe South high school speech

Verona, PA - Former Republican presidential candidate and Patriot Voices Chairman Rick Santorum issued the following statement regarding the cancellation of his upcoming speech at Grosse Pointe South High School in Michigan:

"It’s a sad day when liberal educators are allowed to influence young minds - extending free speech rights only to those who share their liberal views. I support traditional marriage; I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. I’m not sure what the administrators in the Grosse Pointe Public School System are afraid of, but these students deserve the respect to form their own opinion on this important issue.

“Furthermore, anyone who has ever seen me speak knows I rarely use prepared text. In the case of Grosse Pointe High School - I was never asked for a copy of a speech, nor did I send one. This has nothing to do with the content of a speech, but rather the context of my convictions.”

 

[_Abyssinia]

Update: high school will allow Rick Santorum to deliver speech after originally canceling over his ‘extreme’ gay marriage stance

TheBlaze, among other outlets, reported on the incident and, following the coverage, the school district apparently reversed course, again. YAF put out a statement today discussing the change-of-heart, writing:

After pressure from students, parents, and local community leaders, the Grosse Pointe Public School System has decided to reverse their decision and allow Senator Rick Santorum to speak to the students of Grosse Pointe South High School.

“We are pleased that the school district has reversed their decision. Senator Santorum is a two-term United States Senator, someone who ran for President of the United States, and remains a driving force in the public policy realm. It would be a great disservice to the students to keep them from hearing him,” Young America’s Foundation Vice President Patrick X. Coyle said.

Compromise restores Rick Santorum speech at Grosse Pointe South

 

[_Abyssinia]

Gay Marriage and the Breakdown of Moral Argument: A commentary by Fr. Barron

youtube.com/watch?v=CYJ9BOcOxy8

 

[josh987654321]

I have said it before on here on a different thread and I will say it again, religious liberty can not be comprised

Exactly

Anti discrimination laws forcing businesses to provide products for homosexual ‘wedding’ ceremonies reminds because of the Obama admin forcing businesses to provide contraception, abortifacients, sterilization etc against the religious conscience of business owners

This is why we cannot remove religion from such a debate as legalising same sex marriage, we cannot be forced to participate in something sinful, the law will be able to legally persecute all of those like me who refuse to participate in sin.

People are saying we need to remove religion from such a debate that involves law, but it’s not very smart to implement laws that are Ignorant to religion, thats how Rome fell, to legalise same sex marriage by law will create civil disobediance, because we obey God’s laws over Man’s laws, we try to obey both, however legalising equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality with same sex marriage will cause the two laws to clash I think.

Even with a non religious debate, it doesn’t make sense to try and equate homosexuality and heterosexuality under marriage, as they are fundamentally different, if they just used a different word instead of marriage, they would have alot less opposition.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

I have said it before on here on a different thread and I will say it again, religious liberty can not be comprised

Of course it can. Does a worshipper of Huitzilopochtli have the freedom to offer an unwilling victim as a human sacrifice?

There are limits on religious freedom, and rightly so. The question is where those limits are to be drawn.

rossum

 

[_Abyssinia]

Of course it can. Does a worshipper of Huitzilopochtli have the freedom to offer an unwilling victim as a human sacrifice?

There are limits on religious freedom, and rightly so. The question is where those limits are to be drawn.

rossum

Having the freedom not to be forced to pay for drugs that are morally objectionable and not be forced to provide a product to a homosexual ceremony can not be compared to a worshiper of Huitzilopochtli not having the right to murder

 

[josh987654321]

Of course it can. Does a worshipper of Huitzilopochtli have the freedom to offer an unwilling victim as a human sacrifice?

There are limits on religious freedom, and rightly so. The question is where those limits are to be drawn.

rossum

I agree with you rossum, but imagine us saying to you as a Buddhist that there are limits on religious freedom, therefore you have to sacrifice some of your beliefs as a buddhist?

I guess it’s a good thing that a vast group don’t believe in human sacrifices, because in reality that would turn out to be a serious problem without a simple solution as you make out with limitations on religious freedom.

The question is where are those limits to be drawn and I can assure you that we will not and cannot compromise on homosexuality, we cannot compromise on religious liberty, so I guess it’s a good thing that most of our beliefs are morally right according to others and that christianity is in vast numbers.

It’s just the way it is, because these beliefs are not just made up, if you believe in God, than you must know that homosexuality is the miss use of God’s creation, Like all of our disordered desires, the truth is turned upside down and mocks God and his creation, and his commands, although I don’t know the Buddhist’s take on God.

I will have no part in the acts of homosexuality in any way, whether it be education or providing services for such a union to take place, I would also hate for the law to persecute all of those like me who refuse to encourage or participate in any way with regards to homosexuality, I think 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.

If it does come to that by legalising same sex marriage and making it unlawful to discriminate between homosexuality and heterosexuality, than we will still not budge and therefore it will create civil disobedeance, as we will be forced into making a choice to obey God’s laws or man’s laws and I certainly don’t want that to happen, I don’t want to be persecuted by law for trying to obey God.

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 is dead right, this is a serious problem, as a Buddhist rossum, would you be willing to sacrifice your religious liberty because of anti discrimination laws? would you be willing to sacrifice some of your beliefs simply because the law didn’t agree with your morality? because I wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice my moral compass because the law said my morals were wrong.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[GaryTaylor]

we will still not budge and therefore it will create civil disobedeance, as we will be forced into making a choice to obey God’s laws or man’s laws and I certainly don’t want that to happen, I don’t want to be persecuted by law for trying to obey God.

Thank you for reading
Josh

I don’t know that this could be avoided at this point. If so there is a very narrow window of opportunity left.

They proclaim this is the new modern evolution of mankind and equal rights for all. But you see, this in fact is very old and has always lingered around, just as abortion has. Truth is this isn’t forward thinking at all, but a re-visit of very difficult periods of persecution. And we see this worldwide, as Christianity is persecuted today. No reason to expect this won’t touch here as it has already landed.

The true forward thinking is the teaching of Christ which in fact does bring peace and harmony though humility and love thus life. Not selfish pride, wrapped in nothing more than an act of unproductive sex thus pleasure for the sake of self gratification, that acts in its own self-interest with complete disregard to life.

None of this is new historically, the abomination or the persecution. Its a repeated story in which the progress has been impeded, in fact only by Grace.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Is support for gay ‘marriage’ really rising?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Of course it can. Does a worshipper of Huitzilopochtli have the freedom to offer an unwilling victim as a human sacrifice?

There are limits on religious freedom, and rightly so. The question is where those limits are to be drawn.

rossum

Religious belief cannot be compromised by the believer. The state is putting religious believers needlessly in an untenable position. In that sense, religious liberty cannot be compromised with any good result, violation of universally accepted proscriptions, such as murder, aside.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I know one thing. In the end, God’s law will stand. Nothing like being on the right side of history.

It’s amusing how opponents of God’s laws actually perceive themselves as victorious when it goes their way in these matters. All I can say is, don’t get out the pompoms and champagne prematurely! The battle is not over until the last blow is struck, and there is someone larger than Goliath here.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Gay Couple Makes Florist Choose Between Supporting Gay Rights or Getting Sued

After five weeks of biting their tongues, a gay couple in Richland, Washington, is making a loaded offer to a florist who refused to sell them flowers based her biblical belief that “marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed’s lawyers, working with the legal powerhouse at the ACLU of Washington, sent a letter today to Arlene’s Flowers owner Baronelle Stutzman saying she has two options: (1) She can vow to never again discriminate in her services for gay people, write an apology letter to be published in the Tri-City Herald, and contribute $5,000 to a local LGBT youth center, or (2) she can get sued for violating the Washington State Civil Rights Act.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Poll: TV helping push same-sex marriage approval

 

[josh987654321]

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”?

rossum

I didn’t think of this problem, I think the law would be wrong to sacrifice our religious liberty in this circumstance either, I don’t know how Catholics are treating this atm, because for Catholic’s like me a marriage between divorcee’s ins’t a valid marriage, unless they have an annulment (this is why we say until death do we part and not until divorce do we part) however a union between two men or two women is not marriage at all.

But yea, good question rossum, I will try and get back to you on that one.

I just think that two men or two women marrying (coming together to give one self to the other fully which includes sexually) is intrinsically Immoral and Disordered, so it’s different to your situation above which is just Immoral.

Anti discrimination laws forcing businesses to provide products for homosexual ‘wedding’ ceremonies reminds because of the Obama admin forcing businesses to provide contraception, abortifacients, sterilization etc against the religious conscience of business owners

we will still not budge and therefore it will create civil disobedeance, as we will be forced into making a choice to obey God’s laws or man’s laws and I certainly don’t want that to happen, I don’t want to be persecuted by law for trying to obey God.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Yea maybe I am blowing this out of proportion a bit with religious liberty and anti discrimination laws in regards to same sex marriage, because with many other things as rossum has pointed out, they are already conflicting.

I don’t think same sex marriage will be societies un-doing, because technically many other things are already majorly contributing to societies un-doing, same sex marriage will just contribute a bit more.

I don’t know if this is the case or not, but in the same way can people legally persecute a doctor or someone in a medical profession who refuses to have anything to do with abortions? because that would be a far greater threat than same sex marriage in my opinion.

Personally, I would put Abortion far higher on a priority list of things to oppose, if I could make a trade off that legalised homosexuals the recognition of marriage and abortion to be made illegal, I would gladly do it.

The main thing with same sex marriage, is that given the sexual nature of homosexuality and heterosexuality, they are fundamentally different, If we recognise homosexual unions as marriage’s, than they will have to have equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality and like I said, given their sexual nature that wouldn’t be right.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are fundamentally different so they should not be equated under marriage, however certain aspects of a homosexual union and a heterosexual union could be equated I think.

But with regards to other things such as education, I don’t think the sexual nature of homosexuality should be taught the same as heterosexuality is, as one is how the bodies sexual organs are supposed to be used and the other is not, I don’t want kids being taught a miss use as a ‘second option’ so to speak.

And in regards to adoption there isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ solution but it should not be discrimination or unlawful to take into account the lack of a father figure or mother figure when it comes to children and science most definatly should not be used to allow homosexuals to procreate as that would be bringing a child into the word with the intention of depriving them of their father or mother for no reason other than selfish ones.

however just to be clear, Im not talking about homosexuals, Im talking about homosexuality, homosexuals and heterosexuals must be treated equally in every way, anything else would be unjust and very wrong.

The difference between this and other kinds of discrimination, is that same sex marriage and homosexuality is a choice, homosexual desires aren’t a choice but to act on those desires is, so anti discrimination laws shouldn’t be involved there I think.

So anti discrimination laws should most certainly involve equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, however it should not involve equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality with things like same sex marriage.

Beause if I said I didn’t want to serve people wearing hoddies in my shop, than that would be okay, as that is a choice to wear a hoddie, I mean pubs and clubs have dress codes, this would just be similar, as we should be able to discriminate if it’s in regards to an action/choice.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[kelvinf]

I don’t know if this is the case or not, but in the same way can people legally persecute a doctor or someone in a medical profession who refuses to have anything to do with abortions? because that would be a far greater threat than same sex marriage in my opinion.

In Germany, that would be a violation of freedom of therapy which doctors enjoy. A doctor cannot for instance prescribe a drug that he does not like like the pill or carry out a procedure that he does not agree with.

Personally, I would put Abortion far higher on a priority list of things to oppose, if I could make a trade off that legalised homosexuals the recognition of marriage and abortion to be made illegal, I would gladly do it.

We can have a lot of things at the top of our priority lists. I will put abortion and SSM next to each other. These are issues we just can’t comprise on. (But I understand what you are talking about.)

however just to be clear, Im not talking about homosexuals, Im talking about homosexuality, homosexuals and heterosexuals must be treated equally in every way, anything else would be unjust and very wrong.

I do not agree. People who identify themselves as homosexuals are usually into homosexuality. If I were sexually attracted to children, I wouldn’t call myself a pedophile if I were to believe my feelings were disordered and wouldn’t act on them. But someone who is sexually attracted to children is called a pedophile anyways. Moreover, we should never forget that the adjective “homosexual” has two meanings and hence the noun. So I believe it is fair to use the word as per the definition you choose.

Beause if I said I didn’t want to serve people wearing hoddies in my shop, than that would be okay, as that is a choice to wear a hoddie, I mean pubs and clubs have dress codes, this would just be similar, as we should be able to discriminate if it’s in regards to an action/choice.

True.