Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

[TEPO]

Mostly, it is. The drive against gay marriage in this country has been led by religious organizations: Focus on the Family, the LDS, the AFA, etc.

Any non-believers among their midst are fellow travelers, or token saps adopted to give the anti-gay marriage movement a semblance of secularism that doesn’t exist.

The atheist character of foreign anti-gay sentiment is irrelevant to the essentially religious character of American anti-gay sentiment.

We all understand how easy and convenient it is to place societies problems on religion, while at the same time, crediting the good aspects of religion to the benefit athiesm.

…Its easy and convenient to link religion to tradition too, while calling the athiest dream “progress”…

Its clear that the agenda at hand is simply to destroy religion and anything else that is destroyed along the way would be considered worth it by the progressives.

 

[TEPO]

This country is dirty, I’m almost ashamed to call myself American.

 

[TEPO]

Is “anti-gay sentiment” supposed to mean ill feeling and discrimination towards people who identify as gay?

I have met a lot of people who are not on the gay marriage bus. In one case I suspect there might be underlying “anti-gay sentiment”. One. In most cases there was religion involved in the concerns about marriage, but quite a lot of not hugely religious people are concerned with traditions, social aspects and the law as it pertains to religious freedom (potentially less of a legal problem with the USA than for us, for reasons I shan’t bore you all with).

In my case, and in the case of other persons of faith I can vouch for, and as far as I am aware in the wider campaign which I was associated with, and active within on this side of the pond, there has been no anti-gay sentiment at all. As in, not a speck of anything you’d call homophobia if you were being honest, not a central issue that some people identify as homosexuals or what have you.

In my experience the suggestion that everyone invested in traditional views of marriage and the family, is some sort of frothing-at-the-mouth skinhead just itching to make people sad, is emotive invention meant to stifle rational discourse in good faith. It has largely worked, too.

Progressive radicals always attack individuals personally. When that fails, they pin you with a stigma, usually as a racist, nazi or a greedy person. They are ruthless.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Is “anti-gay sentiment” supposed to mean ill feeling and discrimination towards people who identify as gay?

I have met a lot of people who are not on the gay marriage bus. In one case I suspect there might be underlying “anti-gay sentiment”. One. In most cases there was religion involved in the concerns about marriage, but quite a lot of not hugely religious people are concerned with traditions, social aspects and the law as it pertains to religious freedom (potentially less of a legal problem with the USA than for us, for reasons I shan’t bore you all with).

In my case, and in the case of other persons of faith I can vouch for, and as far as I am aware in the wider campaign which I was associated with, and active within on this side of the pond, there has been no anti-gay sentiment at all. As in, not a speck of anything you’d call homophobia if you were being honest, not a central issue that some people identify as homosexuals or what have you.

In my experience the suggestion that everyone invested in traditional views of marriage and the family, is some sort of frothing-at-the-mouth skinhead just itching to make people sad, is emotive invention meant to stifle rational discourse in good faith. It has largely worked, too.

Well said. To me, this smear campaign against supporters of traditional marriage is not really surprising, right; it is just basic progressive political thinking at its most individualistic and libertarian - a complete rejection of the common good and moral responsibility. Those who reject ethics don’t abide by them. That would be inconsistent.

 

[DCNBILL]

We all understand how easy and convenient it is to place societies problems on religion, while at the same time, crediting the good aspects of religion to the benefit athiesm.

…Its easy and convenient to link religion to tradition too, while calling the athiest dream “progress”…

Its clear that the agenda at hand is simply to destroy religion and anything else that is destroyed along the way would be considered worth it by the progressives.

It is very interesting to see those who subscribe to the new atheist movement, believing in neither God nor the Devil, being so easily controlled by the latter and not have an inkling that it is happening.

 

[ringil]

Ringil,I rarely,if ever agree with you on anything,however,on this we do agree!

Though politically we may disagree, I am sure we would be in accord in most if not all aspects of Catholic doctrine.

The way we express ourselves may be different but the core beliefs may be more similar than it appears.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is very interesting to see those who subscribe to the new atheist movement, believing in neither God nor the Devil, being so easily controlled by the latter and not have an inkling that it is happening.

Not quite sure how to determine if someone is in the new atheist movement, but speaking on non-religious and religious in general:

Actually, many of the people that are supportive of gay marriage are also religious. It seems the body of opponents and proponents of homosexuals wedding each other are largely made up of people that claim some religion. But given that the USA is largely composed of people that claim some religion or religious belief this is probably no surprised. Depending on where you draw the line for the non religious spectrum they make up 3 to 12% of citizens in the USA (Pew research 2014). More than 50% of Catholic and white protestants have had favorable views on gay marriage sine 2011 (ref: pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/).

For the entirety of the years the Pew survey was run (since 2001) support for gay marriage has been above 59%. But they make up a smaller percentage of the population.

Do these numbers imply anything to you on being lead by the Devil?

 

[DCNBILL]

Not quite sure how to determine if someone is in the new atheist movement, but speaking on non-religious and religious in general:

Actually, many of the people that are supportive of gay marriage are also religious. It seems the body of opponents and proponents of homosexuals wedding each other are largely made up of people that claim some religion. But given that the USA is largely composed of people that claim some religion or religious belief this is probably no surprised. Depending on where you draw the line for the non religious spectrum they make up 3 to 12% of citizens in the USA (Pew research 2014). More than 50% of Catholic and white protestants have had favorable views on gay marriage sine 2011 (ref: pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/).

For the entirety of the years the Pew survey was run (since 2001) support for gay marriage has been above 59%. But they make up a smaller percentage of the population.

Do these numbers imply anything to you on being lead by the Devil?

I believe that sin, in general has a lot to do with Satan, especially this movement in the United States that undermines the family unit. Frankly I thought that was almost won by the Tempter with the abortion issue, once you are able to convince a mother that it ok to kill her child before he/she is born, how easy would it be to completely dismantle the family.

The atheists are usually self proclaimed and I have yet to encounter one that is against same sex marriage and yes even those of us with faith are subject to sin but hey we also have Confession in my faith!

 

[TEPO]

Not quite sure how to determine if someone is in the new atheist movement, but speaking on non-religious and religious in general:

Actually, many of the people that are supportive of gay marriage are also religious. It seems the body of opponents and proponents of homosexuals wedding each other are largely made up of people that claim some religion. But given that the USA is largely composed of people that claim some religion or religious belief this is probably no surprised. Depending on where you draw the line for the non religious spectrum they make up 3 to 12% of citizens in the USA (Pew research 2014). More than 50% of Catholic and white protestants have had favorable views on gay marriage sine 2011 (ref: pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/).

For the entirety of the years the Pew survey was run (since 2001) support for gay marriage has been above 59%. But they make up a smaller percentage of the population.

Do these numbers imply anything to you on being lead by the Devil?

The fact that the athiests still wish to claim that it is religion that is opposed to gay marriage, when Episcopalians ran a float with a transvestite wearing a thong in a gay parade, means that the real goal, behind the curtain, is to destroy religion for the sole purpose of destroying religion. The Irony is that many religious are on board.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The fact that the athiests still wish to claim that it is religion that is opposed to gay marriage, when Episcopalians ran a float with a transvestite wearing a thong in a gay parade, means that the real goal, behind the curtain, is to destroy religion for the sole purpose of destroying religion. The Irony is that many religious are on board.

Would a more balanced statement be that: “the tenents of some religions contain positions against gay marriage. Individuals select whether or not to adopt and follow those tenents.”

If not, how would you word a more accurate claim?

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[TEPO]

Would a more balanced statement be that: “the tenents of some religions contain positions against gay marriage. Individuals select whether or not to adopt and follow those tenents.”

If not, how would you word a more accurate claim?

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

I’m mobile as well. But the way to understand this is that heterosexual unions predate religion and it is tradition that homosexuality be kept confidential. Therefore we say: “According to tradition, gay marriage is opposed, while according to Progressive ideals gay marriage should be legal… However religions of many kinds take positions on either side.”

…The above quote would be the honest way of perceiving this -that is unless one wishes to use this as an opportunity to bash religion. Some have, and they’ve been very successful with it. Its an injustice. But they avoid convrsations on the Episcopalian, thong-wearing, crossdressing, religious in gay parades.

 

[mjwise]

The fact that the athiests still wish to claim that it is religion that is opposed to gay marriage, when Episcopalians ran a float with a transvestite wearing a thong in a gay parade, means that the real goal, behind the curtain, is to destroy religion for the sole purpose of destroying religion. The Irony is that many religious are on board.

I actually spent the time to track this down, and actually, they didn’t. There was a person near the float who was attired that way at some point (small pic here) but absolutely no one on the float was dressed that way. What was Fr. Morris doing at a pride parade anyway? His twitter account doesn’t explain that. Couldn’t that have been an occasion of causing scandal to attend one or be seen at one especially when clearly attired as an RC priest?

 

[TEPO]

I actually spent the time to track this down, and actually, they didn’t. There was a person near the float who was attired that way at some point (small pic here) but absolutely no one on the float was dressed that way. What was Fr. Morris doing at a pride parade anyway? His twitter account doesn’t explain that. Couldn’t that have been an occasion of causing scandal to attend one or be seen at one especially when clearly attired as an RC priest?

Well, if it was a mistake, then thats a good thing. But still, the Episcopalian Church does teach that gay marriage is acceptable for Episcopalians, right? Or else they wouldn’t have sponsored the float. Or have made statement such as those in the following link.

episcopalchurch.org/page/lgbt-church

…So the main point stil stands, that opposition to gay marriage is a divided issue between the teachings of different religions/ religious, and their churches. Its traditional not strictly religious.

 

[mjwise]

Well, if it was a mistake, then thats a good thing. But still, the Episcopalian Church does teach that gay marriage is acceptable for Episcopalians, right? Or else they wouldn’t have sponsored the float. Or have made statement such as those in the following link.

Yeah, but there’s a difference between saying Episcopalians are voting for same-sex marriage (which Fr. Morris did not need to attend any pride parade to find out) and another thing to claim they are running floats full of gyrating transsexuals in parades which is clearly what the tweet implied. Let’s stick with the facts.

…So the main point stil stands, that opposition to gay marriage is a divided issue between the teachings of different religions/ religious, and their churches. Its traditional not strictly religious.

This is true.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yeah, but there’s a difference between saying Episcopalians are voting for same-sex marriage (which Fr. Morris did not need to attend any pride parade to find out) and another thing to claim they are running floats full of gyrating transsexuals in parades which is clearly what the tweet implied. Let’s stick with the facts.

This is true.

Well, now look who’s jumping to conclusions. Fr. Morris claimed to be walking near the corner of Broadway and 22nd St. when he “ran” into a gay pride parade going by. Do you have evidence that he was “attending” the parade or do you want to insist everyone not supportive of gay pride need to stay off the streets when a parade is scheduled?

 

[mjwise]

Well, now look who’s jumping to conclusions. Fr. Morris claimed to be walking near the corner of Broadway and 22nd St. when he “ran” into a gay pride parade going by. Do you have evidence that he was “attending” the parade or do you want to insist everyone not supportive of gay pride need to stay off the streets when a parade is scheduled?

NYC Pride 2015 is almost certainly a huge parade by the looks of it? I don’t know how you could be in town and not be aware it was going on even from blocks away. He showed up long enough to see the Episcopal Church apparently putting on transsexual strip teases and then he got spit on. What a lovely day for him.

 

[Peter_Plato]

NYC Pride 2015 is almost certainly a huge parade by the looks of it? I don’t know how you could be in town and not be aware it was going on even from blocks away. He showed up long enough to see the Episcopal Church apparently putting on transsexual strip teases and then he got spit on. What a lovely day for him.

New York has a reputation for just that kind of “lovely day.” Have you ever seen the Out of Towners?

So he has no right to walk down the street to some destination when NYC Pride 2015 is in town? Hello?

This assumes he was interested enough in the event to become informed about its route rather than merely having a preoccupation to arrive at a location that he was interested in.

My wife once inadvertently joined in a classic car parade which was likely the event of the year in the city she was then living in. She wasn’t aware that the event was even planned, let alone its route because it held no interest for her.

 

[TEPO]

NYC Pride 2015 is almost certainly a huge parade by the looks of it? I don’t know how you could be in town and not be aware it was going on even from blocks away. He showed up long enough to see the Episcopal Church apparently putting on transsexual strip teases and then he got spit on. What a lovely day for him.

Honestly, I ran into a gay latino parade or whatever a few weeks ago. I was there for an appointment with the IRS… But the parade / protest was blocking everything.

…It happens.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Did anyone notice a NAMBLA float in the New York parade?

 

[TEPO]

Did anyone notice a NAMBLA float in the New York parade?

You mean the North American Man/Boy Love Association - the pedophile advocacy organization? No, I hope they weren’t there. But Im sure there are some who would be willing to add a ‘P’ to make it the LGBTQP community one day.

…I mean it’s not fair for only some to come out of the closet. Surely everyone should ‘come out’.