Same Sex Marriage and SCOTUS

[cjforJesus]

The United States is an extremely diverse country. Diverse in many and all aspects in life. Christianity may be a “major” religion in this country, but it’s not the only religion in this country.

Sharia Law. Let’s talk about that. You state that “we” should oppose anything that would interfere with people’s ability to get into heaven. (Paraphrasing here, I hope that’s okay with you). The Muslim population is growing greatly in this country. What if some Muslims proposed policy and legislation that is accordance to their respective faith? What if Muslims started proposing foods that aren’t Halal are illegal? Eating Halal foods brings us closer to Allah, and not partaking in halal foods brings us further away from Allah.

Using your argument, any religion can and should push for legislation that puts us further away from Heaven. We should start banning meats and shellfish and anything that isn’t Kosher or Halal.

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?

Are you comparing sodomy to eating shellfish?

This is NOT about imposing any religious law or belief but about a mere 5 people deciding for 300 MILLION what is justice and the pursuit of happiness. Am I happy that my grandkids are now going to be taught by the state that homosexuality is just another class of family? No matter how much I teach them morals society is going to brainwash them otherwise and I have no legal recourse.

The crux of the whole issue is homosexual couples insisting they not only be recognized but also celebrated as “just another diverse lifestyle.” The only difference between people who share deep friendship as same sex, and those who wish to be married are one does not engage in mutual masturbation. That is what religious find repulsive also because it is very unsanitary and spreads AIDs very fast. Heck who knows maybe same sex friends will seek marriage licenses just for the legal benefits and they would be allowed to. I guess genital acts are really not necessary.

 

[cjforJesus]

The United States is an extremely diverse country. Diverse in many and all aspects in life. Christianity may be a “major” religion in this country, but it’s not the only religion in this country.

Sharia Law. Let’s talk about that. You state that “we” should oppose anything that would interfere with people’s ability to get into heaven. (Paraphrasing here, I hope that’s okay with you). The Muslim population is growing greatly in this country. What if some Muslims proposed policy and legislation that is accordance to their respective faith? What if Muslims started proposing foods that aren’t Halal are illegal? Eating Halal foods brings us closer to Allah, and not partaking in halal foods brings us further away from Allah.

Using your argument, any religion can and should push for legislation that puts us further away from Heaven. We should start banning meats and shellfish and anything that isn’t Kosher or Halal.

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?

I just wanted to say I am dreadfully sorry for that misspelling in post #2. I quote Pope Francis as using the word “arthropological” instead of anthropological.

Arthropology is related to man and the arts!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are you comparing sodomy to eating shellfish?

This is NOT about imposing any religious law or belief but about a mere 5 people deciding for 300 MILLION what is justice and the pursuit of happiness.

Actually, it was worse than that, it was ONE judge who decided for 300 million what marriage will be.

The four judges who dissented were obviously just stupid as far as the law goes since they hit the “wrong” answer. They should be summarily dismissed because they are so incompetent with regard to what the “correct” view of the law should be. Now we know better, apparently, so those judges should also, like the baker, the photographer and the bed and breakfast owners be tried, sued to the tune of $135, 000 and forced into sensitivity training since they are on what turns out to be the wrong side of the law. Arrest those judges for discriminating against gay couples!

[/sarcasm]

 

[unstoppable_II]

How so? Please elaborate on that statement. That would be great! Thank

you!

Gladly.

1. Is it in the constitution? If not, why do we rely on it?
2. Can you define it? IOW come up with a definition that all 300,000,000+ Americans can agree on. Your definition will have to address a number of issues. For example, as a practicing Catholic, am I allowed to vote? Can I donate to a political party or candidate? Can I gather signatures for a referendum? If so, can I do it outside a church after services? Can I register voters? Can I make speeches or write in support of [or opposition to] candidates for political office? Can I work in a campaign? [This is not an exhaustive list.]
3. Am I two persons or one? The Church says that when I vote, I should use a well-formed conscience, one that conforms to the teachings of the Church; some non-Catholics say I should park my religious beliefs outside before I enter a voting booth so I don’t violate “separation of church and state”. Can I be both of these persons at the same time? BTW, I have never heard this requirement laid on non-Catholics.

Not one in a million could answer even one of these questions correctly, but everyone “knows” what “separation of church and state” means.

The metaphor of a “wall of separation of church and state” is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It is an extra-constitutional construct that should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. – William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

 

[Julianna]

Which church?

And who gets to decide which church?

When get the answer, let me know, because I’ve always wanted to know that as well.

 

[Julianna]

Now, what is the societal value, or meaning, or “why is marriage (as a contract) even needed?”.

You get a boy and girl, both teens. They live in our society, and have sex, and make use of contraception. Then, this happens:

Female Condom: 79% efficacy - almost never used due to awkwardness and discomfort
Male Condom: 82% efficacy - rarely used due to discomfort
Withdrawal: 78% efficacy - seriously, who has the presence of mind to withdraw at the last moment? Besides, pre-ejaculation
Hormonal Pill: 91% efficacy - efficacy may lower due to a lot of physiological alterations, use of antibiotics, alcohol, etc., plus it is dependant on the woman remembering to take them (injectable hormones raise efficacy by mere 3%)
Vasectomy (99,85%) and Laparoscopy (99,5%) - even with these extreme, usually non-reversible, methods, 1 in every 100 woman who made use of this method gets pregnant every year.

So, the girl gets pregnant. The boy doesn’t have money to take care of the girl, the girl is pretty much scared of the whole situation. What we have then:

a) The boy stays with the girl. Both have the baby. The child is raised by a maybe-loving family, with little resources for themselves;
b) The boy leaves the girl. The girl has the baby. The child is raised by a loving mother, being privved from the presence of a father and half the family.
c) The boy stays with the girl - as long as she aborts. The girl falls for that “proof of love” speech. The baby dies.

In all three cases, who is the one most affected by all this? The child. It either will be raised by people who did not prepare, nor want it, or it will be abandoned by one or both parents and put for adoption, or, worse of all, it will be killed before even having a chance to voice their own opinion on the matter.

I have to say I take exception to your notion that adoption = abandonment. Adoption is the logical choice in your scenerio. Neither teen is ready to parent. There are two parent families praying night and day for a child…and you see “abandonment”…really? uch:

 

[unstoppable_II]

So, *which *church is the conscience by which the government is judged?
…

See my reply in post #15.

 

[Julianna]

Whichever present the best case. Same with any other body or individual that has a compelling case to be made. If we are at all interested in good governance we ought to be listening to whichever voices present compelling reasons to question what the government is doing. It isn’t the voice or the source that is important it is what is being said.

This idea of “this group” over here shouldn’t be heard - not because they don’t have something compelling to say, but merely because they are a church - is ridiculous. If we are at all interested in the truth of things, we ought to be willing to listen to the truth from whatever quarter it comes. That is the idea behind freedom of speech and the reason why it is a positive thing to promote in any civilized society.

My Southern Baptist grandmother was livid when Kennedy became President. She and the rest of her Baptists believed that he would turn the country Catholic and make laws in Catholic’s best interest. Funny, that didn’t happen.

So again, what Church, whose Church, what Christian denomination…

Growing up in Massachusetts in the 60’s we had a “moment of silence” (that way whatever faith you were, you had the moment of silence to pray your faith doctrine prayer) after the Pledge. When I moved to the south, the “Lord’s Prayer” (our…Our Father) was said over the PA after the Pledge along with a verse from the King James Bible. Imagine the funny looks I got from the other students when I stopped saying the Our Father outloud, because the Catholic version doesn’t include, “The kingdom, the power and glory forever…et al. ending.” I didn’t hear a verse the entire time from Micah or Wisdom. I am trying to imagine the looks on the “few” Jewish students…who kind of just stood there. Whereas, back in Massachusetts…there was a moment of silence.

So the question remains.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Now, what is the societal value, or meaning, or “why is marriage (as a contract) even needed?”.

You get a boy and girl, both teens…etc.

There is a lot in your two posts. Let me just say that there are personal purposes for marriage [e.g., love, security, getting away from parents, etc.] and public purposes. According to Roback-Morse, who makes a good non-religious case, the essential public purpose of marriage is to tie children to their parents and their parents to one another. You hear and read a lot about the former, but little of the latter, especially from the SS"M" crowd.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My Southern Baptist grandmother was livid when Kennedy became President. She and the rest of her Baptists believed that he would turn the country Catholic and make laws in Catholic’s best interest. Funny, that didn’t happen.

So again, what Church, whose Church, what Christian denomination…

Growing up in Massachusetts in the 60’s we had a “moment of silence” (that way whatever faith you were, you had the moment of silence to pray your faith doctrine prayer) after the Pledge. When I moved to the south, the “Lord’s Prayer” (our…Our Father) was said over the PA after the Pledge along with a verse from the King James Bible. Imagine the funny looks I got from the other students when I stopped saying the Our Father outloud, because the Catholic version doesn’t include, “The kingdom, the power and glory forever…et al. ending.” I didn’t hear a verse the entire time from Micah or Wisdom. I am trying to imagine the looks on the “few” Jewish students…who kind of just stood there. Whereas, back in Massachusetts…there was a moment of silence.

So the question remains.

Frankly, I don’t understand your problem with “which church,” because the same problem exists when you remove all churches. The question is simply rephrased as “whose truth?”

Which political solutions will we choose? There is still a need to discern which political solution will best work - regardless of who came up with it - to solve the current political issue. It doesn’t matter whether the solution comes from a church, a civil organization, a think tank or some Mensa individual. Does the solution work to solve a political problem? It ought to be judged on its own merits, not dismissed outright because it came from a church.

Again, your problem is based upon a logical fallacy called the genetic fallacy - the truth or falsity of any proposition should not be judged by its origin but on its own merit.

 

[ThatsNoBueno]

Are you comparing sodomy to eating shellfish?

This is NOT about imposing any religious law or belief but about a mere 5 people deciding for 300 MILLION what is justice and the pursuit of happiness. Am I happy that my grandkids are now going to be taught by the state that homosexuality is just another class of family? No matter how much I teach them morals society is going to brainwash them otherwise and I have no legal recourse.

The crux of the whole issue is homosexual couples insisting they not only be recognized but also celebrated as “just another diverse lifestyle.” The only difference between people who share deep friendship as same sex, and those who wish to be married are one does not engage in mutual masturbation. That is what religious find repulsive also because it is very unsanitary and spreads AIDs very fast. Heck who knows maybe same sex friends will seek marriage licenses just for the legal benefits and they would be allowed to. I guess genital acts are really not necessary.

Hello, thank you for your response. Can you please explain to me what exactly is sodomy? How is being homosexual linked to sodomy?

Also, I was merely giving an example / scenario and not comparing “sodomy” to eating “shellfish.”

“Justice” and “pursuit of happiness” can be different things to different people. If you’re concerned about your grandchildren being though that same sex marriage is just another kind of family, there is a purpose to private schools. This is why we have private schools. If you disagree with the public school curriculum, then send your grandchildren to private school. Simple as that. If money is an issue, well there’s always a way around these type of issues.

I think “brainwashing” is a strong word. I don’t think the State is brainwashing anything. They’re simply giving right and freedoms to people. They are not forming a moral opinion on the matter.

You got me completely caught off guard here. What exactly does “mutual masturbation” have to do with anything here? I’m very confused. Please elaborate.

While we’re on the topic of masturbation. Masturbation in the Catholic Church is considered a “mortal sin.” Engaging in this act brings us further away from God and His Church. Would you agree with that?

So that being said, why not make masturbation illegal too? It’s an immoral act? It’s an immoral act like homosexuality. Why ntot?! Same sex marriage is a great evil just like masturbation. So why no?

Genial acts? What does that mean?

I’m being completely serious here. I’m just a tad bit confused by what you’re saying. Apologies.

 

[exnihilo]

TRUE…to an extent…it is true we have religious liberty, but religious liberty is the SAME IDENTICAL THING as separation of church and state.

If you persecute the Church, then you believe the antichurch should run the state spiritually.

If you support a state that favors Catholicism, then you believe that.

If you support religious liberty for ALL religions, freedom from a secular government, then you believe in…separation of Church and State.

I disagree. Seperation of church and state comes from a letter of Thomas Jefferson. It isn’t a principle of the US government except through incorporation by the judiciary. The first amendment says Congress will not establish a religion. That means there will not be a national church. There could be state churches and there were at this country’s founding. This clause in no way prohibited religious symbols or expression by the state or federal government.

The amendment also says there will not be a prohibition of the exercise of religion. This means Congress will not prohibit religious practice. It doesn’t mean religious belief because you can’t prohibit that. Any man can always believe whatever he wants. The clause had obvious limits. A religious belief in human sacrifice would not be allow someone to kill someone else. The courts are slowly eroding this right.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
I think “brainwashing” is a strong word. I don’t think the State is brainwashing anything. They’re simply giving right and freedoms to people. They are not forming a moral opinion on the matter.
…

First of all, government does not “give” rights to anyone; they are entitled to them because they are God-given. [As a separate exercise, explain why God would give a right to sodomy when He clearly condemns it in the Bible.]

No brainwashing going on? Consider the following real cases:

“Transgenderism and Unemployment: What Really Matters”
By Bruce Robinson
August 10, 2014

"…Thus, the perfect trumps the good, and all of California’s children must be subjected to massive classroom, locker-room, and bathroom behavior modification. Late last year, this public-school pogrom suddenly became very personal for me when I received a phone call from my grandson. He and his twin sister, both high school juniors in the Windsor Unified School District (Sonoma County), had just been subjected to a series of classroom lectures by transgender spokesmen and ordered by their English teacher to write a paper defending the special rights of their LGBT schoolmates.

‘Grandpa,’ my grandson protested, ‘I don’t know what to do. I don’t believe in any of that stuff!’”

Note: Never mind that homosexuals have been lying about not wanting special rights, what the student was ordered to do is to write and sign a loyalty oath. Loyalty oaths have been unconstitutional since the 1950s. I give the student, young as he is, a lot of credit for knowing truth from falsehood, though.​

Lawsuit: Glowacki
June 20, 2013

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center today announces a victory in their lawsuit against teacher Johnson McDowell of Howell High School in Howell, Michigan.

The Court declared the teacher’s actions in punishing [student] Daniel Glowacki for expressing his beliefs against homosexuality violated “Daniel’s First Amendment rights.” In its findings of fact, the Court described how the teacher initiated a discussion about homosexuality. The teacher wore a purple t-shirt and was promoting the homosexual agenda. In response, the Plaintiff, 16 year-old
Daniel Glowacki stated that homosexuality was against his Catholic beliefs. The teacher, admittedly, became angry and threw Daniel out of class because he disagreed with Daniel’s beliefs.​

“Ask God what your grade is.”
Regular Torch readers will likely remember [student] Lopez’s shocking story: In a Speech 101 class, Lopez delivered remarks referencing his religious views as part of a class assignment, including expressing his view of Biblical morality and his conception of the proper definition of marriage. Following the speech, Lopez was called a “phăshist băstärd” by his professor. When Lopez asked for a grade, the professor recommended that Lopez “Ask God what your grade is.” Additionally, Lopez was told by his professor that he had likely violated LACCD’s policies as a result of his speech.

If you think these sorts of actions are not brain-washing but “celebrations,” you you are more naive than I thought; and you obviously believe all the lies you’ve been told. These are not “only four” cases; there’s a whole cottage industry of legal advocacy groups defending students et al from brainwashing because that is what it is.:sad_yes:

 

[unstoppable_II]

I disagree. Seperation of church and state comes from a letter of Thomas Jefferson. It isn’t a principle of the US government except through incorporation by the judiciary. The first amendment says Congress will not establish a religion. That means there will not be a national church. There could be state churches and there were at this country’s founding. This clause in no way prohibited religious symbols or expression by the state or federal government.
…

Apparently, there is no such thing as settled law, either. I thought this very issue was decided in ACLU of Kentucky vs. Mercer County, KY.

…Under the endorsement [of religion] test, the government violates the Establishment Clause when it acts in a manner that a reasonable person would view as an endorsement of religion. … This is an objective standard, similar to the judicially-created ‘reasonable person’ standard of tort law. … Accordingly, we do NOT ask whether there is ANY person who could find an endorsement of religion, whether SOME people may be offended by the [Ten Commandments] display, or whether SOME reasonable person MIGHT think [the government] endorses religion. Rather, the inquiry here is whether THE reasonable person WOULD conclude that Mercer County’s display has the effect of endorsing religion. … The ACLU makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra- constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. See Capitol Square, dismissing strict separatism as ‘a notion that simply perverts our history’. Our Nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion. See, e.g., Marsh v. Chambers, upholding legislative prayer; McGowan v. Maryland, upholding Sunday closing laws; see also Lynch, ‘There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789’;CapitolSquare, describing historical examples of governmental involvement with religion. After all, ‘[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being’, Zorach. Thus, state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally permissible. – Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, ACLU of Kentucky vs. Mercer County, KY

 

[cjforJesus]

Hello, thank you for your response. Can you please explain to me what exactly is sodomy? How is being homosexual linked to sodomy?

Also, I was merely giving an example / scenario and not comparing “sodomy” to eating “shellfish.”

“Justice” and “pursuit of happiness” can be different things to different people. If you’re concerned about your grandchildren being though that same sex marriage is just another kind of family, there is a purpose to private schools. This is why we have private schools. If you disagree with the public school curriculum, then send your grandchildren to private school. Simple as that. If money is an issue, well there’s always a way around these type of issues.

I think “brainwashing” is a strong word. I don’t think the State is brainwashing anything. They’re simply giving right and freedoms to people. They are not forming a moral opinion on the matter.

You got me completely caught off guard here. What exactly does “mutual masturbation” have to do with anything here? I’m very confused. Please elaborate.

While we’re on the topic of masturbation. Masturbation in the Catholic Church is considered a “mortal sin.” Engaging in this act brings us further away from God and His Church. Would you agree with that?

So that being said, why not make masturbation illegal too? It’s an immoral act? It’s an immoral act like homosexuality. Why ntot?! Same sex marriage is a great evil just like masturbation. So why no?

Genial acts? What does that mean?

I’m being completely serious here. I’m just a tad bit confused by what you’re saying. Apologies.

I thought I wrote “genital” as referring to the sex organs.

Yes masturbation is considered a serious sin though in general it does not spread AIDs.

Mutual masturbation refers to the intimate acts that same sex couple usually engage in.I doubt very few would identify as gay if they were celibate. Gays cannot engage in sexual intercourse because they both have the same genitalia. The most they can do is stimulate each other in various ways to acheive orgasm. That is what i mean by mutual masturbation.

Yes the state is brainwashing people and the media has engaged in a relentless campaign to denigrate Christians and put gays up on a pedestal. I have noticed this very much over the last 10 years. The agenda has finally come to a conclusion.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… The agenda has finally come to a conclusion.

I disagree. They aren’t done yet, not by a long shot. They started 45 years ago telling us all they wanted was to be left alone. We didn’t get from there to here by accident.

 

[NovusFidem]

I have to say I take exception to your notion that adoption = abandonment. Adoption is the logical choice in your scenerio. Neither teen is ready to parent. There are two parent families praying night and day for a child…and you see “abandonment”…really? uch:

I am sorry it offended you, but I do not understand your reasoning. I do not see adoption as meaning abandonment. I simply proposed one possibility where a child was abandoned and put up for adoption. The idea was to say that, no matter the reason, the child would be put in a situation that is not desirable. Not the adoption per se, but the fact that the child was abandoned.

The parents could have died, or decided to give a better life to the child through adoption, but the situation I presented was merely illustrative of one of possible situations. It was by no means representative of the entirety of adoptions.

But sorry for anything.

 

[ThatsNoBueno]

I disagree. Seperation of church and state comes from a letter of Thomas Jefferson. It isn’t a principle of the US government except through incorporation by the judiciary. The first amendment says Congress will not establish a religion. That means there will not be a national church. There could be state churches and there were at this country’s founding. This clause in no way prohibited religious symbols or expression by the state or federal government.

The amendment also says there will not be a prohibition of the exercise of religion. This means Congress will not prohibit religious practice. It doesn’t mean religious belief because you can’t prohibit that. Any man can always believe whatever he wants. The clause had obvious limits. A religious belief in human sacrifice would not be allow someone to kill someone else. The courts are slowly eroding this right.

Separation of Church and State is as it sounds, the separation and division of the government from religious institutions. It does not mean freedom from religion as is the case happening all across Europe, especially in France. The government can not prohibit religion or regulate it or the beliefs or practices. An example of why a separation of Church and State is important is in a situation where there are Ten Commandments on State House grounds or Court House grounds. There are three different versions of the 10 Commandements. A Jewish version, a Catholic version, and a Protestant version. Or let’s say prayer in schools, how do we determine which religion’s prayers are said before class. It’s all about fairness and being fair. It’s all about equality.

 

[exnihilo]

There are three different versions of the 10 Commandements. A Jewish version, a Catholic version, and a Protestant version. Or let’s say prayer in schools, how do we determine which religion’s prayers are said before class. It’s all about fairness and being fair. It’s all about equality.

If only it were that simple. The government has all manner of religious promotion. For instance the Washington Monument is a religious symbol. The Statue of Liberty is the representation of a goddess. There are images of gods on the Supreme Court building. There are images of gods in the Capitol Building. There are religious images on our currency. There is plenty of religion promoted by the government, its just Christianity that is prohibited.

 

[ThatsNoBueno]

If only it were that simple. The government has all manner of religious promotion. For instance the Washington Monument is a religious symbol. The Statue of Liberty is the representation of a goddess. There are images of gods on the Supreme Court building. There are images of gods in the Capitol Building. There are religious images on our currency. There is plenty of religion promoted by the government, its just Christianity that is prohibited.

Fair enough. However, I would argue that much of the religious iconography is pagan in nature and comes from ancient religions that are no longer practiced by much of the human population and / or no longer practiced or believed in as they were many centuries ago.

One could argue that these iconography are not held by many people to have a religious meaning any longer. Yes, we may know and understand that they once had a religious meaning at one point in time, but today, they are seen as pieces of artwork.

Keep in mind that the Vatican has a large and extensive collection of pagan and pre-Christian iconography.

So, I think one could say, that yes, these symbols or iconography have a religious history, but don’t have any religious meaning today.

But, interesting take. Reminds me of the whole news story several years ago of having crucifixes in Italian courtrooms. I could be wrong, but from what I remembered, it was argued that it was merely a historical / cultural image, and not a religious one, therefore it should be placed there.