Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

[brazenlilraisin]

Baloney. It is the "anything goes" Deep Thinkers on this board religious reich who have tried to justify vilify anything they perceive to be immoral behavior by misrepresenting what that carpenter/Rabbi said or did not say 2000 years ago.

ftfy

 

[Multivac]

Baloney. It is the "anything goes" Deep Thinkers on this board who have tried to justify immoral behavior by what that carpenter/Rabbi said or did not say 2000 years ago.

But you still haven't proven that being gay is immoral.

 

[BenBurch]

Baloney. It is the "anything goes" Deep Thinkers on this board who have tried to justify immoral behavior by what that carpenter/Rabbi said or did not say 2000 years ago.

LOL! Then what basis do YOU determine morality by? You keep quoting the fictional words of your "god" from the Torah, and then tell us not to use that to justify anything?

Robert, that sort of disconnect indicates to me serious organic brain disease. Have you seen a doctor lately?

 

[Upchurch]

Baloney. It is the "anything goes" Deep Thinkers on this board who have tried to justify immoral behavior by what that carpenter/Rabbi said or did not say 2000 years ago.

Robert, I don't rely on 2000 year old mythology to understand out what is right and wrong. I can do that just fine on my own, thank you.

As I said, I was pointing out that you are pretending to rely on 2000 year old mythology to justify your bigotry. If you disagree, then please, explain why we should not legalize gay marriage without falling back on biblical references. Your argument that it will be the end of the human race is laughable and unsupported since it doesn't prevent straight couples from having children. Your argument that gay couples can't have children has never been a requirement for marriage. Your argument that it is immoral is irrelevant since that is a religious judgement and not all religions agree with you. The US can not base its laws on the beliefs of one sect of one religion.



...and none of that addresses how my post showed any hatred or bigotry.

 

[Upchurch]

As I said, I was pointing out that you are pretending to rely on 2000 year old mythology to justify your bigotry. If you disagree, then please, explain why we should not legalize gay marriage without falling back on biblical references.

Or, if you prefer, please explain where and how Jesus, your primary moral authority, explicitly condemns homosexuality and/or gay marriage. Not through omission. Not through a surrogate. Not some lame "it's too silly to waste his time to comment" argument.

You're not going to find it because he never said anything about gay marriage.

Not that it matters. It's 2000 year old mythology and not a legitimate authority on which to base US law.

 

[crimresearch]

Baloney. It is the "anything goes" Deep Thinkers on this board who have tried to justify immoral behavior by what that carpenter/Rabbi said or did not say 2000 years ago.

Not quite... the citations were to debunk assertions that didn't even match up to their claimed scriptural authority.

 

[RandFan]

Baloney. It is the "anything goes" Deep Thinkers on this board who have tried to justify immoral behavior by what that carpenter/Rabbi said or did not say 2000 years ago.

Being gay is not immoral and I don't need to justify that.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

[ETA: Sorry--I realize this conversation has moved on, and that my point is only tangential to the topic anyway. OTOH, it's at least as relevant as quoting scriptures! ]

I said that the Prop8 case was *not* argued on the basis of religions being able to deny marriage ceremonies to gay couples.

Actually you said:

The Prop8 case, as with the 'gay marriage movement', is focused on equal access to a government issued marriage *license*, which has nothing to do with the numerous religious ceremonies just called 'marriage'.

The part I take issue with is that marriage licenses have nothing to do with religious ceremonies called marriage. That's how it ought be, but in fact, religious clerics conducting those ceremonies are often recognized as state agents using the license to perform the marriage itself (or certify the marriage or whatever). (It differs from state to state, but I cited several examples of this back in post 364.)

It ought be the case that those religious ceremonies have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage licenses and certificates, but, alas, in most states that's not the case.

I also think that it should be the case that getting a license is the end of the story as far as the state is concerned, but in most states, it's not. In most states, just getting the license doesn't make you married. In my state, it's very clear that a religious cleric is recognized by the state as having the same ability to perform a marriage (to execute the license, to certify the marriage or whatever) as a justice of the peace.

I believe this blurring of marriage (the civil/legal thing) and any of the religious concepts of marriage (for Roman Catholics, it's one of the 7 sacraments) is at least in part to blame for the erroneous belief that legalizing same sex marriage (granting licenses for same sex marriage) is somehow a threat to various religious understandings of marriage.

Further, I think this entanglement unnecessary. We no longer rely on religious baptism or christening ceremonies, for example, to legally name babies. In fact, we don't require any ceremony at all (not even by a justice of the peace). We could handle marriages the same way. Just get your license, and as far as the state is concerned, it's done. You're free to conduct any ceremony you wish, but the state would grant no civil or legal recognition of that ceremony.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, I don't rely on 2000 year old mythology to understand out what is right and wrong. I can do that just fine on my own, thank you.

As I said, I was pointing out that you are pretending to rely on 2000 year old mythology to justify your bigotry. If you disagree, then please, explain why we should not legalize gay marriage without falling back on biblical references. Your argument that it will be the end of the human race is laughable and unsupported since it doesn't prevent straight couples from having children. Your argument that gay couples can't have children has never been a requirement for marriage. Your argument that it is immoral is irrelevant since that is a religious judgement and not all religions agree with you. The US can not base its laws on the beliefs of one sect of one religion.



...and none of that addresses how my post showed any hatred or bigotry.

"...your bigotry" is another ad hominem attack. Marriage has always been understood and a man and woman thing. Then comes the "do your own thing" Deep Thinkers who say, Hey, why not man and man, woman and woman? And suddenly claim all traditional marriage believers are "Bigots." We are not bigots. that is an epithet that you have invented and applied to those who stand for traditional moral values.

 

[Robert Prey]

Or, if you prefer, please explain where and how Jesus, your primary moral authority, explicitly condemns homosexuality and/or gay marriage. Not through omission. Not through a surrogate. Not some lame "it's too silly to waste his time to comment" argument.

You're not going to find it because he never said anything about gay marriage.

Not that it matters. It's 2000 year old mythology and not a legitimate authority on which to base US law.

NO. Jesus was your primary authority. And a false one.

 

[Spindrift]

Marriage has always been understood and a man and woman thing.

You keep getting this part wrong. Don't you read the Bible?

 

[Corsair 115]

Marriage has always been understood and a man and woman thing.

That's not quite accurate. In Virginia some fifty years ago marriage was understood (and legally enforced) to be only between a man and woman of the same race. A black man could not marry a white woman, and a black woman could not marry a white man.

Then comes the "do your own thing" Deep Thinkers who say, Hey, why not man and man, woman and woman? And suddenly claim all traditional marriage believers are "Bigots." We are not bigots. that is an epithet that you have invented and applied to those who stand for traditional moral values.

So I guess then the folks fifty years ago who wholeheartedly supported the idea of preventing interracial marriage were not bigots either? They were just protecting their idea of what "traditional marriage" was supposed to be?

 

[Upchurch]

"...your bigotry" is another ad hominem attack.

How so? Did you not say you felt revulsion from homosexuality? Is that not hate? Have you resisted any rational argument to the contrary. Is that not bigotry?

That is not an ad hominem. It is merely a description.

Marriage has always been understood and a man and woman thing.

No, it hasn't. This has been shown to you multiple times. Now, you're merely repeating a falsehood.

Then comes the "do your own thing" Deep Thinkers who say, Hey, why not man and man, woman and woman? And suddenly claim all traditional marriage believers are "Bigots." We are not bigots. that is an epithet that you have invented and applied to those who stand for traditional moral values.

That isn't why you are a bigot and those aren't traditional moral values.

 

[Upchurch]

NO. Jesus was your primary authority. And a false one.

Evidence? For either claim?

 

[Skepticemea]

"...your bigotry" is another ad hominem attack. Marriage has always been understood and a man and woman thing. Then comes the "do your own thing" Deep Thinkers who say, Hey, why not man and man, woman and woman? And suddenly claim all traditional marriage believers are "Bigots." We are not bigots. that is an epithet that you have invented and applied to those who stand for traditional moral values.

"Bigot" is a word that's been around for some time and I doubt anyone here has invented a word. Well, I have, but then I'm more cleveragical than most.

 

[Upchurch]

NO. Jesus was your primary authority. And a false one.

As a reminder:

Morality is always a legal issue.

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt not steal

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Etc., etc., etc.

Er... It's not illegal to commit adultery. Nor to disrespect your parents. Nor to take the Lord's name in vain. Nor to have other gods.

Just so we're perfectly clear, Robert, morality is not a legal issue. I think your anti-gay bigotry is amoral, but that is no reason to make your hatred illegal so long as you aren't harming others. Just because you think homosexuality is amoral is not reason enough to make it illegal.

We're talking about the legality of gay marriage.

In fact, there is. I've been to several same-sex wedding ceremonies. Two of which were performed in churches by religious leaders.

... All of whom were actually playing "Let's Pretend."

So, your version of Christianity is right and other people's version of Chritianity is wrong?

You never did respond to my point that gay marriage was contemporary with Jesus and, yet, he never spoke out against gays or gay marriage.

In those days such a ridiculous idea wasn't even considered. But...

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)

Those are not Jesus's words, they're Paul's.

Although you refuse to acknowledge it, not only was the idea considered, it was practiced and Jesus says nothing about it.

You, however, did not answer my question. Why is your version of Christianity correct and those Christian churches that marries gay couples "pretending"? Do they not have the authority to say what is or is not marriage in their religious faith?

Neither the Bible nor Jesus is my primary authority for anything (except, maybe, biblical trivia). You were the one who linked morality with legality and who linked morality with the Bible. Unless you're Jewish (are you?), you're likely a Christian, which means you purport to follow the teachings of Jesus.

I am an atheist. I do not even pretend to follow the teachings of Jesus, but I know what they are, which is more than can be said of you. I'm merely pointing this out, as well as the fact that your first quote up there is completely out of touch with the US legal system.

 

[KingMerv00]

Loving v. Virginia only protects the plantiffs to the extent that all marriage laws lend equal protection. In the absurd case that the State bans marriage altogether everyone is equally protected...equally unhappy, but equal in the eyes of the law...and we're back to the conclusion that marriage is a privilege granted by the State and not a fundamental and unalienable right of the people.

A direct quote from the Loving Case:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"...

 

[Skepticemea]

A direct quote from the Loving Case:

I note that the quote doesn't mention anything about women!

 

[BenBurch]

That's not quite accurate. In Virginia some fifty years ago marriage was understood (and legally enforced) to be only between a man and woman of the same race. A black man could not marry a white woman, and a black woman could not marry a white man.
...

I'm sure RP longs for the good old days.

 

[BenBurch]

"Bigot" is a word that's been around for some time and I doubt anyone here has invented a word. Well, I have, but then I'm more cleveragical than most.

Yes, it is a perfectly cromulent word.