A great day for freedom and liberty.

[PedroDaGr8]

Freedom and liberty took another step forward today, with the supreme court overturning another prejudiced law. Loving couples, no matter the gender, may now join in marriage and commit their life together.

A very good day.

[suncat05]

I agree about today as well. Not so much on yesterday's big decision though. I am still in total disagreement with the federal government and the law. I should not be forced to buy something from the government that I neither need nor want.

[KSRBEvans]

Charles Lane
@ChuckLane1

5m

You think it doesn't matter that the Senate turned down Robert Bork and Doug Ginsburg then withdrew? Kennedy was Reagan's 3rd choice.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckLane1/status/614449049425575937?p=v

[CGWildcat]

He said he was going to "fundamentally transform the Unites States of America." He's done it in so many ways.

[KSRBEvans]

I'm looking at this from a purely legal viewpoint. Politically, if the people of a state want to say marriage includes 2 people of the same sex, or 5 people, or a man and his livestock, they have the power to do so and more power to them.

Legally, Kennedy's opinion is a bunch of feel-good gobbledygook that would get a Con Law student a C-. Someone posted yesterday about the ACA opinion that it could be summarized as "FEELZ>LAW," and we have more of the same today. (Ironically, Roberts yesterday, who wrote the ACA majority opinion, and Roberts today, who dissents, seem to be 2 different people.)

These cases set us on a very dangerous path of legal review. For those who say "I don't care--I got my way," you should hope the shoe is not on the other foot in the future. It might not feel so comfy.

[Darrell KSR]

I'm socially liberal, which confounds many of my very conservative friends, and fiscally very conservative, which confounds my very liberal friends. While I am happy that there is a recognition of rights available to members of the same sex, there's a churning in my gut about how we reached it.
I'm looking at this from a purely legal viewpoint. Politically, if the people of a state want to say marriage includes 2 people of the same sex, or 5 people, or a man and his livestock, they have the power to do so and more power to them.

Legally, Kennedy's opinion is a bunch of feel-good gobbledygook that would get a Con Law student a C-. Someone posted yesterday about the ACA opinion that it could be summarized as "FEELZ>LAW," and we have more of the same today. (Ironically, Roberts yesterday, who wrote the ACA majority opinion, and Roberts today, who dissents, seem to be 2 different people.)

These cases set us on a very dangerous path of legal review. For those who say "I don't care--I got my way," you should hope the shoe is not on the other foot in the future. It might not feel so comfy.

[KeithKSR]

I'm socially liberal, which confounds many of my very conservative friends, and fiscally very conservative, which confounds my very liberal friends. While I am happy that there is a recognition of rights available to members of the same sex, there's a churning in my gut about how we reached it.

I'm not a fan of judicial legislating and would prefer the states decide these matters, and that aspect that bothers me. The result of the ruling itself doesn't as I think everyone needs to choose for themselves what makes them happy and as long as it isn't something that negatively impacts others in society then the government needs to keep its nose out of private affairs.

The reason the ruling bothers me is that some of the it can lead to rulings down the road that can subvert the Constitutional rights of Americans. We are seeing governmental over reactions that are currently negating the rights of Americans due to political correctness, it is the duty of the courts to uphold the Constitution, not be the PC police.

[bigsky]

Freedom and liberty took another step forward today, with the supreme court overturning another prejudiced law. Loving couples, no matter the gender, may now join in marriage and commit their life together. A very good day. I agree with this. In 2010 I penned a resolution that was adopted by the commission in support of equal rights for same sex couples. The President was still checking the way the wind was blowing.

[Krank]

Freedom and liberty took another step forward today, with the supreme court overturning another prejudiced law. Loving couples, no matter the gender, may now join in marriage and commit their life together.

A very good day.


This may be the only time I ever visit, or even read, a thread on the Barber Shop (thank you, Pedro), but I am very very happy about the Supreme Court ruling today FINALLY recognizing GLBT folks as having every bit of right to the love and happiness previously only granted to straight folks, based upon an archaic understanding of biology, culture, and humanity's core potential.

The very idea that GLBT folks arbitrarily CHOOSE that they are attracted to the same sex, i.e. that it is some rebellious "deviant lifestyle choice" has always been one of the most ignorant (literally speaking) political stances ever conceived.

It's always been simple biology.

We all know, with obvious physical manifestations easily detectable, when we are sexually attracted to someone, and who that someone is. The notion that GLBT folks are somehow exempt from "knowing themselves" in the same way anyone straight does on a sexual level is denying what you can see with your own eyes if you were a fly on a wall in a the bedroom of two lovers who were not straight. Guess what? Same biological physical manifestations of LOVE and sex that non-GLBT folks have.

To be clear, "physical manifestations of attraction" does not equal "intercourse". We all know there is much more to love and sex than THAT. Still, sex is sex, and we are built to do it because we DEEPLY want it. Gay folks are no different. Not one bit. The mode of intercourse has now been defined as immaterial, as it always should have been. Biological facts are not in existence to be reduced to a footnote. GLBT folks KNOW who they are, every bit as much as straight folks do.

These good people, Americans proud as anyone else, should never have been relegated to a lesser status in this nation based upon a LIE about WHO they ARE and ALWAYS have been and it has been corrected TODAY. That is what WE do in America. We FIX injustices and THAT is what separates us from so many nations in this troubled world.

Acknowledging GLBT as the same also makes US, THE United States of America, a stronger country, through and through, because NOW this segment of our society can join in, feeling fully fitted for the Stars and Stripes they have always wanted to have emblazoned across their chests. Simply put, a HAPPY people are a STRONG people.

It won't take too much time for us to all look back on the era before GLBT marriage rights existed as a strange, unfortunate, and wholly unnecessary era for how gays and straights live together. Looking forward, we will know that it was absolutely the correct decision, by basic human standards of how to treat one another ("as one would have them treat you") and by the GREAT historical American tradition of MORE liberty instead of less.

Finally Gay men, Lesbian women, Bisexuals, and Transgender (MtF and FtM) can stop fearing that the nation does not acknowledge them as equally deserving of the same benefits of love, marriage, family, and happiness (a very popular political combination spoken by politicians, left, middle, and right).

We are America, the greatest country in the World and the greatest country EVER in this grand Earth's history. We have proven AGAIN today that such an assertion is strongly justified by understanding that treating people of different sexual orientations as they always should have been treated... THE SAME, because they ARE the same as any other American who contributes to the furthering of liberty and justice for ALL.

[CGWildcat]

It's about to get to 'I Love Lucy' chocolate/conveyer belt chaos levels at the Westboro Baptist Church sign factory!!
- taken from Twitter :sHa_dielaughing:

[UKRxman93]

Religious Liberty took a giant step backwards today. Disagree with the decision and the "reasoning" for it. Basically legislating from the bench. As a believer in Christ, I'm taught to love those with whom I disagree, unlike Westboro Baptist. I have family involved in that lifestyle and while I disagree for moral/religious reasons I do genuinely love them. On another note this "victory" will not be satisfying enough for many of those aligned with the LGBT movement. Only when ALL opposition or dissent is removed, AKA the "evil" traditional conservative Christian church and its views. Then and only then will there be satisfaction.

[Krank]

Christianity is still WAY more powerful than any one group concerned with their civil rights.

There are very few institutions in this country with greater support, financially, emotionally, spiritually for those who believe, and in force of numbers, than Protestantism and Catholicism. There will always be very conservative believers amongst those groups. There always has been. That will not change... unless conservative Christians, themselves, choose to change.

Are their rights to hold their beliefs and live freely in their faith being "killed off" by GLBT folks being allowed to marry? How does a small minority (GLBT is tiny in proportion to Christian numbers whether you are counting all Christians or just the most strongly conservative) destroy a faith that has existed for thousands of years and brainwash them into submission?

I would say such a thing even coming close to happening would be the most amazingly unlikely occurrence in the history of the written word. JMO.

[suncat05]

I believe this was the right decision by the Court. That said, I do not believe from a religious standpoint that this is correct, but the Bible tells us that this lifestyle is a sin and that God does not want this for His children. Therefore, when God calls us all home and we have to stand before Him to be judged, those that have chosen to live this way will have to answer to Him.

They are all people. I know many gays, and I personally do not have a problem with them. It's their life, and as Americans they have the right to freely choose how they live that life, which is one of the basic tenets stated in the Declaration of Independence, that ALL MEN (to include our womenfolk as well, so as not to exclude them here) have the right to seek out LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

There is room for everybody at the table of freedom. Except for terrorists, and pedophiles.

[ukcatlvr]

I guess that I'm old school. I think it was the wrong decision and should have remained at the state level IMHO

[Doc]

I'm socially liberal, which confounds many of my very conservative friends, and fiscally very conservative, which confounds my very liberal friends. While I am happy that there is a recognition of rights available to members of the same sex, there's a churning in my gut about how we reached it.

Sound like me except I'm probably a bit more socially liberal than you especially on gun issues and abortion. As for same sex marriage, I'm confounded as to why the govt ever got in the marriage business in the first place. Marriage is a religious union between people. IMO it should have been left religious but then you can't unring the bell, can you? Once the govt sticks.their nose into it, 2 things are guaranteed. One is they will always be involved and two, they will always screw it up

[Doc]

To add, why do I care who anybody marries? Doesn't make one rats ass difference to me nor does it affect how I see my marriage. If both are adults, both consent, I don't care. However I should also be given the right not be forced to provide a service if I disapprove of it. If a church or an individual objects, that too is their right. If a business doesn't want to provide services for that wedding, it's their choice.

[kingcat]

I an socially pretty liberal and a proud Democrat. Yet I believe it is the wrong decision for Christian reasons.

For, whatever the political ramifications, God despises sex between same sex couples and is likely to remove his blessings even farther from this country. As in ..


God the Father said.."the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous."

Two angels, disguised as human men, visited Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot, Abrahams nephew, met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed.

"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'"

The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.

Lot and his family left the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities..."

God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And we as a nation tempt Him to deal with us fairly by enacting such laws. I fear the ramifications in that way. The nation of Israel had their laws and commandments directly from God...and our laws now fly in direct opposition to those. And we as Christians either believe..or we don't

Love the sinner...hate and yet forgive the sin. But as a matter of national law, we tread very dangerous ground here by standing contrary to the God of creation.imho.

There is a way that seems right to man, but the end there of is destruction.


Sadly, that is a certainty.

[Doc]

Dave, I respect your religious beliefs. They are right for you but not for everybody else. I'm not gay and don't believe in that lifestyle but that doesn't mean I should force my lifestyle and beliefs on others.

[kingcat]

I understand and certainly don't try to force my belief on others.

My belief is based on the fact (as i see things) that God made the rules. When options are allowed by Him, or things are not clearly defined I am very liberal. In this case there is no wiggle room for me.

I understand being gay or lesbian is not always a choice, and i sympathize...but the choice to avoid the sin as best one can and subsequently consent that God's law is the right way..is always an option. That attitude alone can mean salvation for both the gay and lesbian population. but to say 'the act' is good and that God's command is wrong is to proclaim unbelief (or worse, rebellion) which results in condemnation. Either for the individual or in this case..the nation.

I believe the founding fathers would flee this country overnight and aid the British, seeing such a law enacted.

Just the way I believe..no offense intended.

P.S.
I believe there were other ways of accomplishing this, abstract of national support for any certain lifestyle.
The path we are taking will certainly destroy us eventually. Not the gays nor lesbians or any anything the individual does, but the fist in the face of our creator.

[KeithKSR]

The very idea that GLBT folks arbitrarily CHOOSE that they are attracted to the same sex, i.e. that it is some rebellious "deviant lifestyle choice" has always been one of the most ignorant (literally speaking) political stances ever conceived.

It's always been simple biology.

We all know, with obvious physical manifestations easily detectable, when we are sexually attracted to someone, and who that someone is. The notion that GLBT folks are somehow exempt from "knowing themselves" in the same way anyone straight does on a sexual level is denying what you can see with your own eyes if you were a fly on a wall in a the bedroom of two lovers who were not straight. Guess what? Same biological physical manifestations of LOVE and sex that non-GLBT folks have.

I work with kids that are 12 to 14 years of age. I see kids that arbitrarily choose to experiment with same sex relationships, and others who have an obvious natural inclination to prefer the same sex. The experimenters tend to be more of a fad and are likely to be in heterosexual relationships later in their teens.

I tend to favor less government interference in all aspects of life. The government needs to keep its nose out of the bedroom, out of the gun cabinet, out of our medical records, etc.

[Krank]

I hear you, Keith. I use your first point, in particular, as a jumping off point for the following thoughts...

Sexual experimentation is a part of growing up, and not just any part. It is one of, if not THE, most important of all aspects of maturing from child to adult. I have known plenty of folks, actually, from college in particular, who had at least one bisexual "encounter", some mundane, some more involved, but not all that important in the long run as they usually "returned" to heterosexuality and life went on. Yes, some who were stifled GLBT, found themselves later than others and had to go through some experimentation to be "sure" about who they are, usually answering the call of guilt, regardless of the source being family, peers, doctrine, or (often) combinations thereof.

Each person has a different journey of self-discovery. Some know themselves earlier than others. It can often be confusing to those who know little about GLBT folks and their actual lives to understand why members of their demographically small community must often go through a period of deep confusion in their lives.

Some of them get nothing but messages of utter disdain about same-sex relations, yet they KNOW that is who they are inside. In these cases, they TRY very hard to fit in, often too hard, becoming extraordinarily depressed. It is only when they shed that guilt, the guilt and shame of being "not moral", "doomed to hell" or whatever other colorful judgment is foisted upon them, that they become truly happy because their inner feelings have finally been confirmed by knowledge of themselves, emotionally, sexually, and socially.

FWIW, and some folks probably could give a crap, but I expect the suicides, the rate of which is (and has been for a long time) by far the highest within GLBT populations when compared to any other group, large or small in numbers when looking at all of society, to go DOWN as a result of this ruling. That, in and of itself, is a reason for folks, gay and straight, to celebrate (I would hope that love is actually important to the people who say that is what they are taught by god).

That is why attempts to convert homosexuals back to "how they were raised" always fail. They know who they are. And they know they are neither evil, nigh morally inferior in ANY way, shape, or form. And their bodies cannot be compelled to lie to their brains because they pray more. It has never worked and it never will.

The importance of sexual identity, knowing oneself, and how/who to engage with in the realms of love, affection, and sex, IMO, cannot be underestimated when one talks about the human experience, regardless of orientation, and the potential for happiness. That complexity is unfortunately never given the sort of deep philosophical thought, discourse, and written word it deserves when one draws their conclusions strictly from ancient cultural texts, presumed to be law-giving for all of the Earth's people forever.

That is one of the tragedies of the disconnect for some folks on this issue IMO. We humans have learned and grown beyond the relative simplicity, however beautiful such texts can sometimes be, compelling for so many reasons, of these texts because we know so much more about the science of sexual identity, gender identity, and what it means for those folks on a day-to-day.

I was brought up Christian. I know the Bible. I understand the compelling nature of the gospels. With that knowledge, assuming for this moment's point I am making right now that a "god" exists, and that god is the god of the Judeo-Christian traditions' stories, I can say with absolute certainty that if "god is all-loving" and "all-powerful" and "all-knowing", such a god could not knowingly, having all of the powers of the Universe at it's hands, and with perfect love, create the sort of HELL that most GLBT folks have gone through in their lives for millennia.

So many folks just don't get how important this is. Our country has finally said that gay folks are "one of us" and that it is NOT evil to be GLBT. The children who do identify as gay will now have ACTUAL confirmation by this great country that the feelings they have as they mature into adults are nothing to be ashamed of and they can be free to be happy, even if their parents threw them out of the house because of "lifestyle choice" or they were violently bullied at every level of schooling they received, or they were made to fear EVER exposing their natural, biologically CONTROLLED sexual feelings or suffer massive professional, personal, familial, and societal consequences.

It's been a VERY sad and terrible journey for GLBT folks in this country and in this world. Yesterday, we proved that America is WAY ahead of most other countries in this regard. WE proved we are better than making excuses for senseless marginalization of folks for who they can't help but love, one component of that love being, of course, inexorably sexual, whether created by nature without god or nature with god at the helm. Moving forward we will ALL succeed more, as a society, because of this long-needed change.

We are more complex than such texts can describe at this time in the Earth's existence. They are too "holy" to "amend", at least according to their believers and faith leaders, so all we can do, as a society, is correct for the greater knowledge that we have NOW, and unless we protect sexual freedom for the future, we doom ourselves to easy reasons for fringe hate to expand and have a greater impact than it has ever deserved... over who we choose to love.

When I think about it, I just can't believe we have had to go through so much rancor over a person's personal choice to love and be loved. How can anyone, in good conscience, deny another person something so basic and then say that it is the will of an all-loving and perfectly omniscient god... and that they "love them enough" to deny them that love?

If there is a god, he or she or they owe GLBT folks an extremely large wing in any kind of afterlife.

Otherwise, count me out.

JMO.

[kingcat]

All people of moral conscience struggle with their sexual appetite at least at some points in life (if not their whole life). It is a natural phenomenon yet is most understandable set apart from "love". No group owns the struggle.

As Christians,we are willingly bought with a great price and our lives are not our own. God our Father is Spirit and no man has ever seen him, nor are His ways like ours. His is the guideline for eternal life through spiritual growth.

Our free will has brought humanity to this point (be it good or bad), yet soon God's way will be the only way.
No democratic or bureaucratic alternatives.

I hope we can all be a part of that together
God can forgive those who truly believe. Those that do not believe have a much bigger dilemma because they have no hope.

If I didn't believe that, it would not matter what anyone does. I'd protect my family and friends to the best of my ability, and let the earth have it's way in consuming it's fleshly inhabitants.

[bigsky]

This is about individual rights, not a religion, not states rights. The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority in this country.

We have the rule of law: "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". I dont see any qualifications in that statement, do you?

I support the constitution and all of the amendments, and the idea of limited government. Libertarians like me have supported these ideas for forty years.

We left a little bit of the Dark Ages behind yesterday. The evil of fanatic religious fundamentalism at work every where in the world; but not here in our counntry. I'm so proud.

[bigsky]

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/bozeman-same-sex-marriage-advocates-thrilled-by-supreme-court-ruling/article_f7d0d437-0891-52e3-91dd-4631f5c3edfb.html

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/246257-se-cupp-gets-emotional-over-same-sex-marriage-decision

[bigsky]

From my resolution in 2010!

[bigsky]

http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/2301174-155/mormons-free-to-back-gay-marriage

Reports from another church.

[elicat]

As Justice Alito recognized at the oral argument and he and others pointed out in their dissents, it was in fact a good day for gays and lesbians but a very bad day indeed for freedom and liberty.

[Doc]

Personally I'm glad that this enormous problem has been solved that affects roughly 2% of the population. Now lets see if the gov't can get to some of the lesser problems like our debt which affect 100% of us when considering both those who pay in and those who take out.

[elicat]

The idea that the only people SSM affects are the principals to such marriages is one of the tricks the left has used in this debate. It is not true. This affects everybody, though it does not affect everybody in the same way. Though it need not have been so, it is in fact bringing along with it suppression of speech rights and the free exercise of religion, just to take two examples. I think it will be an interesting study for some cultural historian in the future to try to figure out how a nation of 330 million allowed itselelf to become so absorbed by the demands of less than 2% of them. But I do agree with you about the debt!

Of course I am assuming that the government or the culture will allow a historian to make such a study in the future. On the current trajectory that is not to be taken for granted

[DanISSELisdaman]

I agree kingcat!

[jazyd]

It should be left to states to decide

This is just another assault on Christianity and all we believe or stand for

This isn't just about gays playing lollipop with each other. This now gives every one of them the right to force any Christian business or any church/ pastor to do something they are opposed to or face legal ramifications. Pastors/ churches will face losing their tax exempt status if they refuse to marry these people when they are opposed based on their Christian faith. Businesses owned by Christians, such as myself, can now legally be forced to do business with groups of oeople who want to do something the Christian opposes

Instead of going to a non Chriatian owned business or a business owned by those who claim to be a Christian but don't believe what the Bible says, or get married in churches who don't preach the Zbible, these people will force the issue with lawsuits! threats! boycotts! etching. We gave already observed it and it will get worse

I asked a social liberal who claimed to be a Christian about the Bible. Her answer was that she didn't believe in the parts that didn't go along with what she wanted to believe in. I had to tell her she wasn't a Christian, you can't pick and choose the parts you like

If you want men who do the things they do to each to marry fine, that's your belief but don't shove It down my throat and force me to serve them. And don't give the belief it's natural, it's not

The court didn't uphold the constitution, they made law which they are not supposed to do. It's my hope they get flooded with all the appeals from the lawsuits this will bring, and they won't be able to take their long vacations but will be forced to actually work 12 months a year. I gave no faith in the court any longer and certainly none in Roberts. He has no standing on anything and makes up things on the fly

Thankfully my daughter and husband are not having any more children, I hate the world and country they are growing up in.

Bad day for the constitution, bad day again for states rights, bad day for Christians, bad day for the country

[kingcat]

In this discussion at least there is a root cause for the difference of opinion. One must ask the question, do I believe in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and more importantly the death, burial and resurrection of His son Jesus.

And then ask, if I do (or did) what should my opinion on this matter be?

There is no room for compromise for Christians..be they Democrat or Republican, Libertarian, or what have you. A national law in direct conflict with God's law is a law that can't be acknowledged as legitimate. And one that clearly and forcefully strikes at the fundamental Christian values this country was founded upon.

The saving grace for us being that, we are in reality Citizens of another land.
And that we know things like this must take place.

[KSRBEvans]

Some Kentucky clerks refusing to issue any marriages licenses to anyone:

http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/29/3923157_some-kentucky-county-clerks-refusing.html?rh=1

[Krank]

In this discussion at least there is a root cause for the difference of opinion. One must ask the question, do I believe in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and more importantly the death, burial and resurrection of His son Jesus.

And then ask, if I do (or did) what should my opinion on this matter be?

There is no room for compromise for Christians..be they Democrat or Republican, Libertarian, or what have you. A national law in direct conflict with God's law is a law that can't be acknowledged as legitimate. And one that clearly and forcefully strikes at the fundamental Christian values this country was founded upon.

The saving grace for us being that, we are in reality Citizens of another land.
And that we know things like this must take place.

kingcat, what does the Bible say about Hermaphrodites? If one looks like a man, but has both sets of genitalia, can that person have a relationship with a man... or is such a person doomed to asexuality because of what you contend to be an absolute law of god?

[elicat]

Not kingcat, but I'll just offer that the fact that there is ambiguity does not mean there is no norm. The fact that there are hard cases does not mean most are not easy. The fact that there is uncertainty does not mean there is no truth.

[Krank]

Not kingcat, but I'll just offer that the fact that there is ambiguity does not mean there is no norm. The fact that there are hard cases does not mean most are not easy. The fact that there is uncertainty does not mean there is no truth.

I don't really understand that completely so I will ask a different way... If a person has both sets of genitalia, how is there EVER any definition of gender and therefore any definition of what is heterosexuality OR homosexuality when considering those folks?

If they are morphologically "made" to be both genders, then according to the strictness of the religious laws you cite, is not asexuality the only road to salvation?

[bigsky]

The Bible, Koran, and Torah have nothing to do with the civil law, otherwise you get this:

"An Islamic court has sentenced nine people to death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad in the northern Nigerian city of Kano."

[kingcat]

kingcat, what does the Bible say about Hermaphrodites? If one looks like a man, but has both sets of genitalia, can that person have a relationship with a man... or is such a person doomed to asexuality because of what you contend to be an absolute law of god?

I don't know. If they feel they are a woman I don't see why not.

Just to be clear, I am not saying any type individual is condemned. Christ will forgive anyone who believes in, and loves him.

And as that love grows, the tendency is to conform to his example and what he desires for us. We are all a work in progress. What I am saying is that this national law goes against God's command.
And to expect any blessing from God on a country that stands in opposition to His will is folly.

For someone that doesn't believe my position is a silly one I am certain. But from a believer's perspective, any other position is a dangerous one...on an infinite scale.

[Krank]

I don't know. If they feel they are a woman I don't see why not.

I only used an example based on appearance. A hermaphrodite can look like one gender when, in fact, they are not strictly either... or are they both? See what I'm getting at. These are actual people. They have both sets of genitalia, thus gender designation cannot be strictly applied, therefore the meanings of "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", and even "transgender" are, intrinsically at the biological level, different than anyone else.

If a law is absolute, then these folks are sinning no matter what they do, thus I ask if they are expected by a loving god to deny themselves ANY sexual life so as not to offend the creator?

[elicat]

A sports discussion board really is not the place to go into it with the kind of conceptual precision your question requires. It is a good question, and intelligent Christians have thought about it and related questions with cogency. I recommend Robert P George's *Clash of Orthodoxies* as a good place to start. He is the McCormack professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University.

[kingcat]

I only used an example based on appearance. A hermaphrodite can look like one gender when, in fact, they are not strictly either... or are they both? See what I'm getting at. These are actual people. They have both sets of genitalia, thus gender designation cannot be strictly applied, therefore the meanings of "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", and even "transgender" are, intrinsically at the biological level, different than anyone else.

If a law is absolute, then these folks are sinning no matter what they do, thus I ask if they are expected by a loving god to deny themselves ANY sexual life so as not to offend the creator?

Thankfully all judgement has been given completely to Christ by God the Father, Someone who has observed the human condition and will judge the heart of a person and not by the letter of the law. He kept the law in our place...and expects us to try to walk that path as best we can..or according the the grace given each of us.

Part of the good news is that God's law didn't apply to us in the beginning, but through disbelief of what God said (Don't be awakened to the existence of good and evil or you will die) the knowledge of good and evil meant eventual death to our spirit. We had one minor command, and yet with the fist in the face of God we the same as stated We don't believe you
But there is a holy precedent for the scripture.. "Blessed is the man to whom God does not impute sin" It requires acknowledging by effort and action that God's law is good however. Again, to the best of our ability

And now the same choice is offered us as in the garden (metaphorically or otherwise). Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. The other choice is to continue beholding to the law and Commandments, and deny Christ. And whoever lives by the law, shall die by the law.

So I say we have more than hope, ALL of us, unless that person refuses to believe. Because there is no forgiveness for that.

Still, on one commandment hangs all the law, and our confidence in Christ saving us..

This is my long-winded perspective on the individual relationship with God as best as I can explain it. Yet, a nation is a different entity altogether and each one is playing a part on this finite stage.

The believer escapes the Father's wrath, but the nations and unbelievers will not. God has blessed this nation up to this point. But now, for the first time.. our law is contrary to God's law.

Believing this, how can a believer think that blessing would continue?

As for me, I probably struggle more than everyone here at being "Christ like" by the way. But I struggle on none the less.
I honestly have so wanted to post jokes in the color changing condom thread.. :)

[CitizenBBN]

The Bible, Koran, and Torah have nothing to do with the civil law, otherwise you get this:

"An Islamic court has sentenced nine people to death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad in the northern Nigerian city of Kano."

True enough, the Founders never intended us to follow a particular religion as law.

But the way our legal system of "protected classes" works we are at risk of forcing specific performance of a service that would force people to violate their religious beliefs, and that's not what the Founders intended either. In effect it becomes servitude. At common law the courts considered specific performance remedies of a service as all but abhorrent, but it seems to be becoming not just possible but positively celebrated. That's a real concern as well.

In the true Libertarian world the state would issue a license to whoever wanted one, but no church, tax exempt or not, and no photographer or baker would be required to participate.

Will we be TRULY equal before the law now, or will we just shift the imbalance from one side to the other? I'm all for the former, but I fear it will be the latter.

To me many in the LGBT community are no different than so many revolutionaries who overthrow the dictator only to move into his palace and start their own repression. They want to force people to support their life choices whether it violates their personal religious beliefs or not. That's not wanting tolerance or equality before the law. They don't want to tear down the palace, they want to sit in it and make the former occupants gravel a while.

Oh, and I have many gay/lesbian friends and have had the same discussion with them over the years. Some even agree with me, many don't see it. They dont' mean ill, but they don't see it.

[bigsky]

Govt grants too many privileges to married couples not to require equal treatment.

Licensing is the least of it. Taxes, survivorship, visitation, property ownership, child custody, etc, are all bigger.

I was married by a justice of the peace, in a corral. I wasnt "civil unioned". Been married 29 years and what "sanctifies" my marriage is our dedication to each other and our friends' and society's respect for that dedication. Equal treatment is due to all.

[kingcat]

A suggestion for the movers and shakers for relabeling the national currency..

"In God we trust, if it suits us"

[CitizenBBN]

Govt grants too many privileges to married couples not to require equal treatment.

Licensing is the least of it. Taxes, survivorship, visitation, property ownership, child custody, etc, are all bigger.

I was married by a justice of the peace, in a corral. I wasnt "civil unioned". Been married 29 years and what "sanctifies" my marriage is our dedication to each other and our friends' and society's respect for that dedication. Equal treatment is due to all.

Those are all legal matters controlled by the state. What I'm talking about is going to be the non-state issues that impact other people and their rights.

No one's rights are infringed if a same sex couple now gets the legal protection of property transfer and survivorship, but they will if they are forced to perform a marriage they think makes them a sinner.

I'm all for the state getting out of the bias of the marriage business, but that's not where we're going to have issues.

[bigsky]

Weve seen this battle before; slavery justified by the Bible; segregation justified by the Bible; discrimination justified by the Bible, anti miscegenation laws justified by the Bible. Hanging Quakers for preaching their religion justified by the Bible. Jailing Baptists for preaching their religion justified by the Bible. All men, misusing the Bible and mixing it with civil law, to impose tyranny.

I read the opinion as to not require any religion to perform a ceremony. My civil marriage is my way, a church wedding another. The govt cant discriminate between the two.

[kingcat]

Weve seen this battle before; slavery justified by the Bible; segregation justified by the Bible; discrimination justified by the Bible, anti miscegenation laws justified by the Bible. Hanging Quakers for preaching their religion justified by the Bible. Jailing Baptists for preaching their religion justified by the Bible. All men, misusing the Bible and mixing it with civil law, to impose tyranny.

I read the opinion as to not require any religion to perform a ceremony. My civil marriage is my way, a church wedding another. The govt cant discriminate between the two.

Then I submit, the Government must decide if, upon it's precepts and at the heart of what our forefathers intended, was there implication that God really exists.
A simple yes or no and I'll know where I stand as a Christian, and if this is the nation I grew up in.

The above is not the perspective a true believer would have. Are Christian views valid in the eyes of the government, or only allowed?

It's an important question and one that strikes at the heart of the matter imo.

This is entirely different in nature to the examples you give above, also imo.

But that can only be argued if both parties acknowledge inherent truths in the Bible, and that God Himself exists.

P.S
Surely there was a way to accomplish this that accommodates the both the views of the Christian and non believer, because it certainly doesn't come close to hitting that mark. It sets a precedent of utmost concern to many, if not all Christians. And it hints at what might be a coming persecution of Christians for their beliefs.

[bigsky]

Kingcat, did you not pay attention the answer, "to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"? It was exactly this issue, meant as a trap by the questioner, not answered by "pay your taxes", but "dont confuse the two or your separate duties to each."

[elicat]

Are Christian views valid in the eyes of the government, or only allowed?


In light of the Obergefell decision, my question is more basic: Are they allowed, or not allowed?

[bigsky]

Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or none, are all allowed. Government can't favor one and discriminate against the others or by doing so, it establishes an official religion. That's prohibited by the US Constitution.

[elicat]

Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or none, are all allowed. Government can't favor one and discriminate against the others or by doing so, it establishes an official religion. That's prohibited by the US Constitution.
I know that. That's not what I mean. This is what I mean: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2015/03/rod-dreher-on-the-law-of-merited-impossibility.html

[elicat]

For example, http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/

[kingcat]

Caesar has not had Christian or Jewish slaves in many years. They had no choice, nor vote, nor message board platform. ;)

I am a citizen with certain inalienable rights myself.
And I appeal to Caesar!! (jk...is he here?)

I do understand where you are coming from. I'm just trying to make a point about the ramifications of the new law using your input It is certainly a legitimate stance, as well as the law.

But those ramifications are not clearly seen except from the Christians perspective..or the Jewish and the Muslim perspectives

Can't speak for the Buddhists, but in this situation, "or none" stands in direct opposition to the other three, who must also answer to "higher laws" Thus the dilemma this creates.

[bigsky]

For example, http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/ Yes, I've seen flat tax advocates say the same thing about all non profit corporations. Is it about the money or the faith for the corporate church?

[Doc]

Govt grants too many privileges to married couples not to require equal treatment.

Licensing is the least of it. Taxes, survivorship, visitation, property ownership, child custody, etc, are all bigger.

I was married by a justice of the peace, in a corral. I wasnt "civil unioned". Been married 29 years and what "sanctifies" my marriage is our dedication to each other and our friends' and society's respect for that dedication. Equal treatment is due to all.

IMO here lies the problem. Why grant privileges to married folks?

[elicat]

Yes, I've seen flat tax advocates say the same thing about all non profit corporations. Is it about the money or the faith for the corporate church?

As you know perfectly well, religious institutions in this country would not survive the loss of tax exemption. The institutions and their funding models have been built with the reasonable expectation that it is permanent. It is merely disingenuous to make snarky comments about faith or money. This is clearly an effort to eliminate religious institutions from American life. It is fortunate that it is highly unlikely to succeed anytime soon, but it does show what some people are increasingly capable of.

[bigsky]

I know that. That's not what I mean. This is what I mean: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2015/03/rod-dreher-on-the-law-of-merited-impossibility.html That is a battle we face and those who seek some kind of revenge are wrong.

[bigsky]

As you know perfectly well, religious institutions in this country would not survive the loss of tax exemption. The institutions and their funding models have been built with the reasonable expectation that it is permanent. It is merely disingenuous to make snarky comments about faith or money. This is clearly an effort to eliminate religious institutions from American life. It is fortunate that it is highly unlikely to succeed anytime soon, but it does show what some people are increasingly capable of. I dont know that. And its one article. Churches are giving up corporate status to allow them to lobby and engage in political activity. As for being "snarky" will you answer the question? should the Catholic or Mormon church be allowed to accumulate immense wealth?

[elicat]

Well, there's no way for American policy makers to keep the Catholic church from accumulating immense wealth. It's not an American institution. What about the liberal, pro-gay Presbyterian Church (USA) and its hundreds of millions of dollars in their foundation? Is that legitimate? Should a liberal, pro-gay congregation like Riverside Church in NY be allowed to accumulate immense wealth?

I'm not really interested in such questions. I'm interested in the continued viability of the local places American Christians as well as people of other faiths turn up to exercise their faith.

[bigsky]

I'm sorry if I was snarky--it's as personal to me as it is to you.

I will answer your questions: no. I'm for eliminating that chapter of IRS code. For all non profits. It is not right that foundations are landlords and businesses and dont pay for the services they use.

It's fine to advocate for a special interest. Its not fine to make policy and law that way.

[kingcat]

Good nite all. Enjoyed the discussion.

I am a semi-liberal Democrat still..aren't I?

[elicat]

Further food for thought:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/you-will-be-assimilated_969581.html?page=1

"It’s a small thing, to be sure. But telling. Because it shows that the same-sex marriage movement is interested in a great deal more than just the freedom to form marital unions. It is also interested, quite keenly, in punishing dissenters. But the ambitions of the movement go further than that, even. It’s about revisiting legal notions of freedom of speech and association, constitutional protections for religious freedom, and cultural norms concerning the family. And most Americans are only just realizing that these are the societal compacts that have been pried open for negotiation."

[KeithKSR]

Further food for thought:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/you-will-be-assimilated_969581.html?page=1

"It’s a small thing, to be sure. But telling. Because it shows that the same-sex marriage movement is interested in a great deal more than just the freedom to form marital unions. It is also interested, quite keenly, in punishing dissenters. But the ambitions of the movement go further than that, even. It’s about revisiting legal notions of freedom of speech and association, constitutional protections for religious freedom, and cultural norms concerning the family. And most Americans are only just realizing that these are the societal compacts that have been pried open for negotiation."

The same sex marriage charge is part of the progressives' Communist movement.

[elicat]

The same sex marriage charge is part of the progressives' Communist movement.

:sCo_huhsign:

[suncat05]

The same sex marriage charge is part of the progressives' Communist movement.

That assessment is 100% correct and right on point. And what I have been saying all along about this and all of the other ancillary activities associated with these people involved. A lot of different activities are all in play here, and I'm sure if you look at the players some of the same names will keep popping up.

Gay marriage, gun control, Roe v Wade, public education reform, voting issues, immigration reform, and several other issues are all intricately tied together by these liberal socialists/Communists vermin. All you have to do is pay attention and connect the dots to bring the pieces of the puzzle together.

It's a very ugly picture that is forming before our eyes. And I know some of you guys think I'm full of baloney, but the end result may not be to most of our likings. Something very bad is coming, and it's coming for us that don't want it.

[KeithKSR]

:sCo_huhsign:

The Progressives' and the Communists' (CPUSA) platforms are nearly identical twins. The same goals, very slight differences in wording.

[KeithKSR]

It's a very ugly picture that is forming before our eyes. And I know some of you guys think I'm full of baloney, but the end result may not be to most of our likings. Something very bad is coming, and it's coming for us that don't want it.

Those that are unknowingly pushing the agenda won't want it when it arrives.

[KeithKSR]

Link to the CPUSA propaganda pamphlet aimed at seducing Americans into their way of thinking:

http://www.cpusa.org/assets/pdfs/pamphlets/Socialismbooklet.pdf

Every single item on it is a part of the Progressive movement.

[Edward100]

I, too seldom come to this board. I’ve read some of your comments. Both those for and against state interesting comments. We’ve had a state that voted on an issue by legal election and it was overturned by the court. What happened to “Of the people, for the people and by the people”? I thought a democracy works like that. You have an issue; put it on the ballot and vote on it. The loser lives with the outcome. You know, like the presidential election.

This issue of gay marriages is a way to get “A foot in the door”. Now comes the rest of the story. It is unlawful to refuse a gay Boy Scout master to be with a group of kids. I’ve seen some troops disbanded because it was their only choice if they disagreed with the law. I have no desire to watch two men with beards kissing in public. I don’t want a law telling it is unlawful to refuse service to a gay couple or anyone for that matter. As stated in another post, about Sodom and Gomorrah, the way the gays demanded the man to have his guest come out for the reason to have sex with them. Where was the guest's rights?


This is offensive to me. Where are my rights? The idea of equal rights should be for everyone. Not just for the 2%. It’s offensive to me to make governments take down the Ten Commandments, abuse our flag, to be ridiculed for being a Christian, and have different views than someone else.

The Supreme Judge, GOD, will have the last word. His word will be final. Whether you agree or disagree makes no difference to me.

[PedroDaGr8]

I, too seldom come to this board. I’ve read some of your comments. Both those for and against state interesting comments. We’ve had a state that voted on an issue by legal election and it was overturned by the court. What happened to “Of the people, for the people and by the people”? I thought a democracy works like that. You have an issue; put it on the ballot and vote on it. The loser lives with the outcome. You know, like the presidential election.

The power of the supreme court to overturn unjust laws is enumerated in the constitution by the founders. It was specifically enumerated to overturn issues of "tyranny of the majority". This is a reason for the checks and balances, like it or not, but it is very useful. And as the majority becomes less and less religious, this very right might become more and more important to evangelicals as well.



This issue of gay marriages is a way to get “A foot in the door”. Now comes the rest of the story. It is unlawful to refuse a gay Boy Scout master to be with a group of kids. I’ve seen some troops disbanded because it was their only choice if they disagreed with the law. I have no desire to watch two men with beards kissing in public. I don’t want a law telling it is unlawful to refuse service to a gay couple or anyone for that matter. As stated in another post, about Sodom and Gomorrah, the way the gays demanded the man to have his guest come out for the reason to have sex with them. Where was the guest's rights?

Nice how you imply that all gay men are pedophiles. If a gay man is a scout master, I see zero reason to give a damn. Who cares what he does in his home time. I can't count a single time when I was in scouts that the scout masters homelife/wife was even discussed. ZERO! There was no reason for it to. The discussion was on camping, knot tying, etc. As scuh, the only reason you could be saying this is if you think he would molest the kids.

If two men are kissing, who gives a damn if you want to see it or not. It's none of your business. Should someone stop being happy because it gets on your nerves? If you don't like seeing two man in love and happy, turn away. There is absolutely ZERO reason that you should be able to determine what two people do together, unless they are trying to do it to you.

If God were to list the reasons that S&G were destroyed, where do you think their sexual behavior would fall on the list. The way you talk, it would be number one with a bullet but that turns out to not be the case."'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." With the second part, starting with "They were haughty" being a separate verse even. So basically, it's the LAST thing on the list of reasons that S&G was destroyed.



This is offensive to me. Where are my rights? The idea of equal rights should be for everyone. Not just for the 2%. It’s offensive to me to make governments take down the Ten Commandments, abuse our flag, to be ridiculed for being a Christian, and have different views than someone else.
You have your rights, no one is taking your rights away. You are demanding special rights to determine which rights your can strip from others or infringe on others based on your religious beliefs. Sorry, but I have no desire to live in an Afganistan/ISIS like theocracy, nor did the founding fathers. One where raped women are imprisoned or stoned (in the bible). One where not obeying the sabath is a capitol offense (in the bible). One where we follow the biblical law on everything. We are not, nor ever were intended to be a theocracy. So stop trying to make America one. No one is stripping you of your heterosexuality, not one is forcing you to get married to another man, the government is not stopping you from saying what you want. You might have to live with the repercussions (from others that dislike what you say) just as anyone else, but the government is not muzzling you.

You ask about where are your rights, as part of the majority. One of the prime considerations of the founding fathers was specifically to inhibit the majority from riding roughshod over minorities they disliked.
As James Madison states in the Federalist papers #10:


Those who contend for a simple Democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea, that the people composing the Society, enjoy not only an equality of political rights; but that they have all precisely the same interests, and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice could be most easily collected, and the public affairs most accurately managed. We know however that no Society ever did or can consist of so homogeneous a mass of Citizens.

In the sake of brevity, I jump to this statement from later on in FP10:

It remains then to be enquired whether a majority having any common interest, or feeling any common passion, will find sufficient motives to restrain them from oppressing the minority.

At this point, he is saying not only is Tyranny of the majority a possibility but that it is in fact the most likely and natural outcome. The consitution was written with these facts in mind. Tyranny of anything was something that the founding fathers were quite afraid of, and for good reason.

[KeithKSR]

Tyranny of anything was something that the founding fathers were quite afraid of, and for good reason.

Absolutely! IMO, the Founding Fathers would find the current uproar by the thought police over a Civil War battle flag to be far more upsetting than the governments attempts to be the marriage police.

[kingcat]

I guess all is fine for anyone who believes in ethical relativism.

Imo, secular humanists use such things to propagate their faith, outside of the label of religion.
It's a religion none the less. Albeit a false one...and one predicted for the end time many centuries ago.

There is no common ground for discussion between the two views. And there lies the problem.


P.S.
The known universe is not all there is, and the longer I live the more evident that has become to me. And mark these words, one day soon the sky will open as a scroll and The God of Heaven and earth will be seen by all. Then each of us will fall to our knees, both the believer and non believer and this earth will conform to His desire.
And then each of us will have to stand behind what we have truly believed in. And there will be no argument afforded other than Christ crucified.

That is folly to some I'm sure, but it will happen regardless.

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
..George Washington

[CitizenBBN]

Pedro,

While you know I agree with you deeply on your view of the Founders and the importance to prevent tyranny in its many forms, I will add that the worrisome part of the gay marriage situation isn't the issuing of a marriage license, it's the protected status thinking that is inextricably tied to it, and in its own way is a tyranny of the majority just with a different minority being repressed.

The baker who refused to do a cake for a gay wedding on religious grounds has been fined $135,000. clearly a punitive judgement b/c gay couples are part of a "protected class", you MUST do business with them if you do business with anyone. OK, that's fine, she was FINE to bake a cake for a gay person, the original complainant was a regular customer who is gay, she just objected on basis of her faith for participating in any way in something she sees as a sin.

The gay marriage thing doesn't worry me, but the fact that churches all over the country are rewriting their rules to have to find ways to prevent what they see as a sin before their God occurring in their own church is very disturbing.

The courts need to protect from that tyranny as well. Want to get married? have a ball. Want to not be part of it b/c you think being part of it is committing a sin? That should be OK too.

[CitizenBBN]

So what do folks think of this very obvious next step?

(FWIW, I'll break my arm patting myself on the back but I pointed out a couple of years ago on this topic that it was coming after gay marriage)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/02/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/?intcmp=latestnews

[bigsky]

So what do folks think of this very obvious next step? (FWIW, I'll break my arm patting myself on the back but I pointed out a couple of years ago on this topic that it was coming after gay marriage) http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/02/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/?intcmp=latestnews Large groups of polygamists in MT. One area is one of the worst % for immunizations in the country. Deeply held religious beliefs and a strong anti-science component.

[CitizenBBN]

Large groups of polygamists in MT. One area is one of the worst % for immunizations in the country. Deeply held religious beliefs and a strong anti-science component.

should it be as legal as any two person relationship?

[KeithKSR]

So what do folks think of this very obvious next step?

(FWIW, I'll break my arm patting myself on the back but I pointed out a couple of years ago on this topic that it was coming after gay marriage)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/02/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/?intcmp=latestnews

This is obviously the next logical step, and per the SCOTUS ruling must be allowed.

[PedroDaGr8]

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
..George Washington

This quote is false, it is modified version of a quote from his Farewell Address. It is never been shown that he said "It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible", this comes from a Biography written in 1852 about him and is never seen in any other publication. The real quote does support the concept of religion being necessary but it never says WHICH religion. There is no mention of God or a creator, simply a generic religion and morality.


@ CBBN - I think any law attempting to force a religious person from performing a marriage would be shielded by separation of church and state. The churches rewriting their bylaws are doing so in a knee-jerk fashion. As for the woman baking the cake. To play devils advocate: it is a cake, they didn't ask her to attend the wedding, officiate the wedding or play an integral role in the wedding. They asked her to provide a tasty symbolic treat fro them to use at their wedding. The difference being an active or passive/indirect role in the wedding. Truth be told, it is something I am REALLY up in the air on. I can see both sides arguments and believe that both sides have very strong merit. Until I think about it more or I read a discussion that really gets into it more, I will continue to remain up in the air on it.

As for polygamy, if they are consenting non-coerced adults then why stand in their way. I do think that it can cause a huge amount of legal issues because our current basis of marriage is based around a binary relationship. It creates many of the same problems as getting the government out of marriage all together. For example, next of kin in a hospital. If there are two spouses, who gets to be the next of kin to make decision. If both are the next of kin, as their status would be based on current law, what do you do when they want to different things. Say a spouse is in the hospital with no likely chance of recovery, what do you do if one spouse want to pull the plug and the other holds out hope they will recover and is vitally against this. Who do you listen to? It's a very difficult matter and legally something will HAVE to be worked out if polygamy is going to become legal because the legal system is woefully unprepared for it at this time. The question then becomes, is the legal system being woefully unprepared a basis for denying people the right to polygamy or do you allow it and let the cards fall where they may dragging the legal system kicking and screaming forward?

[bigsky]

We know Washington was a Freemason and believed in God. He was the soldier. Jefferson and Madison were the philosophers of the new nation, and they were clearly for separation of church and state.

I'd not rely on Barton for my Founding Father quotes. I have a signed copy of his first book, and a large number of the quotes he uses in that book are unsubstantiated or false.

[bigsky]

I think being forced to bake a wedding cake for a wedding you have religious objections to is as wrong as asking that baker to show up and perform the ceremony. However, Non religious accommodation would be required.

Oregon and its $135,000 fine is outrageous, disproportionate, cruel and unusual.

[CitizenBBN]

I think being forced to bake a wedding cake for a wedding you have religious objections to is as wrong as asking that baker to show up and perform the ceremony. However, Non religious accommodation would be required.

Oregon and its $135,000 fine is outrageous, disproportionate, cruel and unusual.

Knew I could count on you. :)

The problem is that many if not most who are for gay marriage immediately forget the "let people do what they want" part when that question comes up, and dismiss the religious views of others.

No one should be able to stop someone from pursuing their happiness with something like being married to who they want, but neither should anyone be forced to embrace it and perform services for it against their faith.

I know it's a fuzzy area b/c refusing to serve someone b/c yo don't want to versus b/c of your faith is a gray area, but the alternative of fining some poor nice woman $135,000 because she wont' participate in what she thinks is a sin is too abhorrent to not try.

[kingcat]

This quote is false, it is modified version of a quote from his Farewell Address. It is never been shown that he said "It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible", this comes from a Biography written in 1852 about him and is never seen in any other publication. The real quote does support the concept of religion being necessary but it never says WHICH religion. There is no mention of God or a creator, simply a generic religion and morality.



I stand partially corrected I guess. :happy0001:

Yet, we have a pretty good idea it was our God, the One of the Christian faith.

Make no mistake though, I am a supporter of the separation of church and state. But the moral conscience of this country has been guided by Christian values since the beginning, mostly in agreement with other versions of the same, as well as other religions.

Yet even as a distinct minority the Secular humanist religion tries to operate as the only truth and therefore not a religion.
And we must be aware that it covertly targets the separation of church and state as a loophole to subvert, divide, and eventually extinguish Christianity from the American way of life..

I'll try again..



"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

..George Washington

[kingcat]

One other thing I'd like to make clear. I understand that certain rights should be afforded everyone no matter their sexual orientation. My argument is against any law that clearly exists in opposition to Christian values and God's will in general.

And I do not consider a gay or lesbian individual any less a fellow citizen because of my stance.

Should the law have been related to adultery, covetousness, or bearing false witness, my answer would be the same. And while everyone is repeatedly in violation of one or the other of those, a national law should not be written regarding them either way.

To Christian gays or lesbians I say this (really to us all) we should not flaunt our forgiveness for sin by ignoring or perverting God's law in any way.

[elicat]

Thomas

[elicat]

Thomas Jefferson was clearly a deist, which is of course not a form of Christianity. (In fact, Jefferson was arguably anti-Christian.) George Washington, however, was an Episcopalian, which meant pretty much then what it means now. It is, whatever else you say about it, a form of Christianity. So when Washington talks about God, we can suppose he means the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Father of Jesus Christ, rather than the Great Architect and Designer of the Universe that Jefferson would have meant. How devout Washington was remains in dispute, but that when he said God he meant the Christian God really is not.

[Darrell KSR]

Thomas Jefferson was clearly a deist

Did he do Washington's wooden teeth?

Oh, a deist? Nevermind.

[Darrell KSR]

Back on topic--Catholic priest here in Birmingham, Monsignor Mulling, had an interesting piece he authored for his church bulletin at Our Lady of Sorrows. The Birmingham News (al.com, at least) picked it up, and thought some might want to read it.

http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2015/07/gay_marriage_ruling_violates_r.html

[CitizenBBN]

IMO this is where things will take the wrong turn:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/06/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-bake-cake-for-lesbians.html

Hit with a huge fine for not performing a personal service they see as a sin to perform, then hit with a gag order so they can't exercise their 1st amendment rights either. The Attorney General in Oregon is a strong advocate for the LGBT cause, so strong he's willing to use the power of the state to force people to conform to his value system.

It's not going to be two people getting a marriage license that becomes the issue. it's going to be what that license then empowers them to demand of others. Do churches have to allow gay weddings? Do photographers have to come and participate in what they see as a sin in their faith? Those are the tougher questions.

Protected status was easier to accept when it was saying you can't refuse to serve someone in a restaurant due to their race, there was no religious objection there in any major American faith saying having black or latino people in your diner is a sin. There isn't really one to serving a gay couple per se either, but many do see one if they are required to serve the wedding of that gay couple. In their faith that's an accessory to a sin.

Do we tell them tough, it's no different than refusing to serve a black person in your restaurant? Do we force them to take wedding photos or face huge fines? Do we force the churches to allow the weddings? The problem is there is another whole Amendment out there saying that people have the right to pursue their faith as they see fit, not as the state or others see fit, and they have some scripture there that can be interpreted to say they are violating their faith to so participate.

Also dying to watch the bigamy case make its way through, boy will that be fun. No way to turn them down now.

[suncat05]

I have a question in this discussion, and here it is: my Dad was a firefighter, and owned a bar & a grocery store. In his bar, posted on the front door, over the bar in plain view, and over the door leading out to the restrooms, was a sign that said "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone". I only saw my Dad use that sign to refuse service to anyone maybe a couple of times. The bar was a privately owned business, just as the bakery in Oregon is. As a private business owner, I would believe that both my Dad and the bakery owners have a right to refuse to serve anyone as long as there is a good reason. In my mind, the bakery owner has a valid reason as to why they do not want this person's patronage. It the bakery owner's business, how they make a living, and as such, it is their right as private businesspeople to vendor to whomever they damn well please. Can't get the cake you want there? Guess what..........there's another bakery down the street or the next block over.
This is where this situation is all wrong: the customer in question is wrong for taking this to the point it has gone to. And it is none of the damn government's business as to whom the bakery chooses to serve or not serve. The state of Oregon is wrong for being involved and levying any kind of penalty against the bakery. Somebody's rights and civil liberties are being trampled on here, and it is NOT the people wanting the cake, it is the vendor selling the cake. This is government overreach at its worst, and a clear violation of the rights of the business owner to deal with whomever they want to deal with for patrons.
So now, it's okay to destroy another person's livelihood because they can't get want they want from this particular vendor, and especially since there are other vendors available that will meet their needs? That, my friends, is a classic example of tyranny. That is exactly what it is.
That's just how I see this. A "protected group" using the government to impose its will on those who don't wish to deal with them as a product vendor.

I guess Spock had it wrong in the "Wrath of Khan" movie...........""the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many"..........and I know that's not what he said, just further illustration of the absurdity of this entire situation.

[suncat05]

Back on topic--Catholic priest here in Birmingham, Monsignor Mulling, had an interesting piece he authored for his church bulletin at Our Lady of Sorrows. The Birmingham News (al.com, at least) picked it up, and thought some might want to read it.

http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2015/07/gay_marriage_ruling_violates_r.html
Thanks for posting that Darrell. The Monsignor makes interesting and very valid, I believe points.

[kingcat]

IMO this is where things will take the wrong turn:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/06/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-bake-cake-for-lesbians.html

Hit with a huge fine for not performing a personal service they see as a sin to perform, then hit with a gag order so they can't exercise their 1st amendment rights either. The Attorney General in Oregon is a strong advocate for the LGBT cause, so strong he's willing to use the power of the state to force people to conform to his value system.

It's not going to be two people getting a marriage license that becomes the issue. it's going to be what that license then empowers them to demand of others. Do churches have to allow gay weddings? Do photographers have to come and participate in what they see as a sin in their faith? Those are the tougher questions.

Protected status was easier to accept when it was saying you can't refuse to serve someone in a restaurant due to their race, there was no religious objection there in any major American faith saying having black or latino people in your diner is a sin. There isn't really one to serving a gay couple per se either, but many do see one if they are required to serve the wedding of that gay couple. In their faith that's an accessory to a sin.

Do we tell them tough, it's no different than refusing to serve a black person in your restaurant? Do we force them to take wedding photos or face huge fines? Do we force the churches to allow the weddings? The problem is there is another whole Amendment out there saying that people have the right to pursue their faith as they see fit, not as the state or others see fit, and they have some scripture there that can be interpreted to say they are violating their faith to so participate.

Also dying to watch the bigamy case make its way through, boy will that be fun. No way to turn them down now.

I know the reaction from many religions and their members would be one of defiance and a "streets of Moscow" stance against any participation. That's just the fact of the matter.
Most would consider it a part of the end times prophecy of having to renounce their faith or be condemned, and many (although against our instruction) would go into a full rebellion against their persecutors.

[Krank]

I get discriminated against virtually every day for being NOT a Christian. Many, if not most, of my countless GLBT friends have been discriminated against their whole lives, as have GLBT folks before them FOR CENTURIES, because they were seen as a "sinner in the eyes of god".

Forget that the Christian god sees EVERYONE as a "sinner"... somehow people like me (non-religious), people like homosexuals who want to live happily and peacefully, or people who dare to, *gasp*, speak the scientific truth of, say, evolutionary science, are just BAD people, or part of some ridiculous "movement" to destroy the most powerful social institution in this country, worthy of being pointed out AMONGST all other sinners, unworthy of the perfect love of christ as seen through the eyes of absolutist biblical literalism, forever immutably immoral, with GLBT folks spoken about in the same gasps as pedophiles, rapists, and murderers.

Never mind the MANY flaws and inconsistencies in the bible, a book I actually do NOT dislike, find great beauty and wisdom in, and continue to find "inspiring" for certain ideas.

Never mind how I ALWAYS sit in silence while the pompous-ass born-again relative at my family reunions COMPLETELY IGNORES that MY family are NOT religious, yet LOUDLY calls EVERYONE to "pray before god" EVERY freaking YEAR.

Never mind how I have lost MANY potential friends, some relatives, and some business connections through the years based on the simple KNOWLEDGE that I am Agnostic and/or NOT hardcore right-wing Christian. I want to be clear about this... Christians are "called to" bring new believers into their faith, so they NEVER think it is a bad thing to loudly proclaim their religious views around me or whoever else is around, yet I NEVER do that unless the conversation goes in that direction, and even then only if I feel VERY comfortable with the folks I am talking to because you know what happens?.... I am JUDGED (a MAJOR sin, right???), sneered at with moral indignation, and sometimes MUCH worse.

It's okay though because I am in the VAST minority. It's okay though because christians "know" they are "right" and always speak as if christians are the PINNACLE of morality and what defines morality, NEVER to be questioned.

This is the land of the FREE, yet biblical literalist christians, as PEOPLE, NOT gods, think it is okay to point fingers at gay men in the privacy of their bedrooms and scream "SINNER!!! YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!!!", the subtext of which from my experiences and the MANY stories told to me by my GLBT friends is "we don't care that so many of you commit suicide due to banishment from your biblical literalist families, suffer extreme verbal and physical abuse at the hands of your biblical literalist parents, or suffer from insane broomstick RAPINGS in Catholic school locker rooms wherein the literal life-and-death FEAR of reprisal locks the victims' lips in a hellish prison, knowing that reporting it will ONLY make it MUCH worse".

So finally this country says it's okay for these horribly abused members of a minority, based on WHO THEY CHOOSE TO LOVE (yes, sex is a part of that for you, them, and everyone, AND it's NOT a "lifestyle choice", which is a VERY condescending and judgmental CHOICE of phrasing... it's a LIFE of a HUMAN BEING, no better OR worse than ANY "sinner" here or elsewhere, no more or less DESERVING of HUMAN judgment than ANY other TYPE of "sinner" here or elsewhere) to be afforded the legal, financial, emotional, and SOCIETY-defined RIGHTS that everyone else has and we get the most dominant social force in the country (christians) acting as if they are being forced to "be gay like those awful awful people" via a secondary "acknowledgment" that such folks EXIST, not as less than the "good people" as defined by the "good people", but as EQUAL to the "good people" because America insists.

The marginalization of the extreme biblical literalist right has been of their OWN doing... by NOT seeing the writing on the wall when these social issues are going in an inevitable direction and not even ATTEMPTING to budge an inch towards understanding, which of course yields a FAR more fervent EFFORT by those who feel strongly that they are NOT getting their PROMISED rights. By continuing to REFUSE to acknowledge the biological reality of GLBT folks as human beings, and only seeing them with less than contempt, the biblical literalist extreme has shot themselves in the foot as they so often do.

You wanna know the hard truth as to why Evangelical literalists lose SO many of their flock, percentage-wise, to more liberal wings of Christianity, to other faiths, other forms of "spirituality", and even to the "WORST" possible belief systems, in their views, Agnosticism and Atheism?

Because it's VERY unappealing to insist upon blind faith... NOT simple faith in a creator and/or "special spirituality" of certain humans and their philosophies, without even a cursory examination of the day-to-day realities of their actual lives, the social framework that exists within their lives, and the inevitable (and often extraordinary degree of) CHANGE that is a FACT of how our world operates... but faith in a centuries old notion that humans can be believed if they SAY they are divinely inspired. I don't care WHO you are... THAT is a LOT of faith... faith in a human to tell us EXACTLY how life should be (and that the unprovable concept of "god" should be unquestionably believed, first and foremost) and EXACTLY what we humans should ALL believe, i.e. ONLY christians get a nice "after-life"... the rest of ya... get F*CKED by Satan, right???

I am not trying, with this statement, to change the views of a biblical literalist reader or poster on this thread. I am just saying that ol' fire and brimstone might be the cat's jammies to SOME folks, but it sure as hell ain't to MOST folks and THAT is where you LOSE people, especially the young people who are capable of thinking critically beyond ONE translation of the bible as they grow and evolve into adults.

Gay people are not drawing believers away from god. They are just being who they were biologically built to be, which to biblical literalists still means they are NEVER allowed to have sex like their brain tells them to... until they die, I suppose. Absolutists who believe THEY have the be-all, end-all translation of a very complex set of scriptures, and who demand unquestioning conformity based upon those translations, have done all the work of drawing believers away from their narrow view of the Christian bible, and they have been doing this for YEARS.

For those whom this statement angers, I say welcome to the party.

Casual, and actual, discrimination is something that myself and other Agnostics/non-religious/non-christians, many of my family and friends, and ALL of my GLBT loved ones have a sh*t-ton of experience with, and almost ALWAYS most prominently this discrimination is at the hands of those who say "my way or the highway" to, who? Episcopalians (in the news)? Presbyterians (in this thread)? Any and all who are not of one specific brand of christianity who are more "open" to social discourse, scientific reality, and a concept of country that is not EXPLICITLY defined by ONE view of "what Christ would do?"?

I believe our GREAT country and evolving society will figure out the problems, some of which I am technically sympathetic with, if not emotionally moved by, that have been entailed in this thread by those who see the full and deserved measure of gay rights as the evil that precipitates tyranny and other inflammatory "we're all going to hell in a hand-basket" because a man kissed a man in public and they exchanged rings and signed some papers.

These legal issues will be sussed out... you may not like the results, but hopefully there will be a better understanding of the intricacies of what it ACTUALLY means to be an equal American in TODAY'S America, thus leading to SOME degree of acceptance that is not dripping with judgment. I have been browbeaten my whole life to understand the bible as the embodiment of perfection of ink on paper, "THE TRUTH. PERIOD." Pardon me if I don't find it easy to sympathize with the view that what I experience, on a human level here on Planet Earth, should have NO bearing on how I feel the society I live in should exist, in peace, under or NOT under god. ALL men. ALL women. ALL humans.

JMO and not meant to insult ANY particular poster on this thread or board.

Peace.

[kingcat]

I'll say this Krank, there are certainly different motives for Christians to witness of what they believe. Some admittedly not so admirable...which is a result of human frailty.
But there are also those who TRULY believe in Jesus the Christ, Son of the Most High, and truly care that their good friends might miss the peace and great hope of eternal life in Christ.

Still, let's forget about the law and such for a moment.

I'd ask that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when folks witness about Christ and lump them all into one pile of self righteous religious megalomaniacs.
Because, I'm telling you for sure that I know Christ personally, and that God is who the Bible says he was/is/ and will be.

That's hard to believe (for a non believer) I understand, but it is as true as I can state it. Lot's of things happened to me and my family over the years and my earnest search yielded some amazing experiences that I'm not ready to share on a forum like this.

Yet my point is only this, if it is Real to a person, how can that believer in good conscience avoid sharing it to those they care about and respect?
Some are sincere in their sharing and not judgmental at all because honestly..their wants, desires, and actions did not magically change upon becoming Christian.
A lifetime of conforming to the image Christ portrayed will not erase the whole of a human weakness and the sin which is inherent to all of mankind.
And it is the tendency of many of us as Christians to joyfully judge others as being worse than we are, to feel more acceptable ourselves
.
Thankfully, we are judged by our mind's intent and our faith, or in other words for what we believe. And while making a true effort, for what we would do, if lacking the human tendency to do otherwise.

But I digress..

Basically, I just hope you don't discard the message entirely because you want so badly to shoot the messengers. At times we deserve it.
:trink39:

[Doc]

I get discriminated against virtually every day for being NOT a Christian. Many, if not most, of my countless GLBT friends have been discriminated against their whole lives, as have GLBT folks before them FOR CENTURIES, because they were seen as a "sinner in the eyes of god".

I edited the post simply for brefity

Question, how do folks come to know you're a non-christian? I mean I go about my life an folks don't know my religious beliefs or my sexuality etc.... unless I elect to let them know. In most cases I don't because to me its none of their business. To me, I really don't care what people "are". I don't care if they are jewish or christian or muslim or buddist...or gay or heterosexual...so long as they leave me alone and don't push it in my face. I do find it bothersome when I go down town and see the "gay pride parade"

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/gay_pride_parade.jpg

and the same people objecting over the "Christmas parade" because it has manger on a float (Google CHRISTMAS PARADE images and see if you can find a religious image). So if folks want to be left alone and not be discriminated against then just be live you life and don't force it on somebody else.

[Crazy4Blue]

Doc gets post of the day

[KeithKSR]

I edited the post simply for brefity

Question, how do folks come to know you're a non-christian? I mean I go about my life an folks don't know my religious beliefs or my sexuality etc.... unless I elect to let them know. In most cases I don't because to me its none of their business. To me, I really don't care what people "are". I don't care if they are jewish or christian or muslim or buddist...or gay or heterosexual...so long as they leave me alone and don't push it in my face. I do find it bothersome when I go down town and see the "gay pride parade"

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/gay_pride_parade.jpg

and the same people objecting over the "Christmas parade" because it has manger on a float (Google CHRISTMAS PARADE images and see if you can find a religious image). So if folks want to be left alone and not be discriminated against then just be live you life and don't force it on somebody else.

Another example of the intolerant left demanding tolerance for things they choose, while being intolerant of others.

[bigsky]

Here is how they know:
they ask
"What church do you attend?" Where do your kids go to Sunday School?". "Here is a map of all the stakes". ...but surely you believe?

For LGBT, they can tell when couples hold hand or kiss or have the same address or dance or cohabitate in a house they own together.

[suncat05]

The average everyday person is not going to think a thing about somebody asking them those kinds of questions. You and I and many others here would, and I am the one that will start answering their questions with questions of my own. It's not hard to discern if someone is up to no good.........if you're paying attention to the subject matter and have any critical thinking skills at all.

If they're coming at you like that where you live and/or work, or if you're out together socially, take it for what it is: it's a sign that they have malice in their hearts for you and yours.

[elicat]

Question, how do folks come to know you're a non-christian?

Joke I read a few months ago:

Q: An atheist, a vegan, and a lesbian walk into a bar. How do you know which one is which?
A: They tell you, over and over.

[jazyd]

I edited the post simply for brefity

Question, how do folks come to know you're a non-christian? I mean I go about my life an folks don't know my religious beliefs or my sexuality etc.... unless I elect to let them know. In most cases I don't because to me its none of their business. To me, I really don't care what people "are". I don't care if they are jewish or christian or muslim or buddist...or gay or heterosexual...so long as they leave me alone and don't push it in my face. I do find it bothersome when I go down town and see the "gay pride parade"

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/gay_pride_parade.jpg

and the same people objecting over the "Christmas parade" because it has manger on a float (Google CHRISTMAS PARADE images and see if you can find a religious image). So if folks want to be left alone and not be discriminated against then just be live you life and don't force it on somebody else.

Doc, it's the way I do it. If you want to ask me a question on my faith I will answer.

I am a Christian and most of the time I try to live a life that hopefully people can tell that. However I am not a goody too shoes. Usually one can tell if someone is a Christian and strong in their faith by their actions but not always.

If you are then great, if not you are an adult and can make your own decisions. I was 40 before I accepted Jesus as my Savior and trust me when it all came together there was no denying what happened.

I have my faith and don't like when people ridicule me or other Christians for it. The thins some say about the Bible, Jesus, a God, faith, the Church, Christians, the ridicule, the whole ball of wax I want to hit them but I try to turn my back to them

I find those who ridicule the most, call names, complain about how Christians supposedly act, how backward we are, how the world is changing and we better get with it, all the garbage they throw out, how they know better are usually exactly what they call Christians. When you listen to them, read their words, how they are progressive and understanding is really false, they are what they accuse others of being. Works almost every time and is really laughable. And they don't even know that they are like that.

Gay parades are offensive to me, men sucking other men's number and sticking it where they do is offensive to me and certainly not natural. For all the progressives who think it's natural, fine go do it with your buddies.

Doc, I enjoyed being with you and your family, didn't matter to me if you are a Christian or not.

[Doc]

Here is how they know:
they ask
"What church do you attend?" Where do your kids go to Sunday School?". "Here is a map of all the stakes". ...but surely you believe?

For LGBT, they can tell when couples hold hand or kiss or have the same address or dance or cohabitate in a house they own together.


I can't tell you the last time somebody ask me what church I attended. I can say was at least more than 5 years ago. When sitting at a table and somebody say "lets pray", I sit quitely and respect THEIR beliefs by saying nothing. Note, my beliefs may or may not be to pray. My preference is to not let that cat out of the bag so to speak. To me that is between me and God. I see no advantage in any type of confrontation.

As for sexual orientation, sure, folks are going to know. I guess but when you make it obvious like the folks above its hard to take them serious when they complain about being singled out. Reminds me of the kid with the tatoo on his face who asks you "what are you staring at?". As I said, I'm fine with people doing their own thing so long as it doesn't interfer with others doing theirs

[Doc]

Doc, it's the way I do it. If you want to ask me a question on my faith I will answer.

I guess thats the gist. I don't ask. I believe your beliefs are just that, your beliefs. They are none of my business. Your sexuality goes in that catagory as well. I've found over the years that it has served me well because I don't get asked my religion. Other things I don't discuss is politics. Found its one of the best ways to lose a client. Or come in with your same sex partner, just roll with it and don't make a big deal because making an issue isn't going to change anything, right? I also don't tell racist jokes, political jokes, or religious jokes at work. Interesting though, dirty jokes are fine.
:trink39:

[jazyd]

I guess thats the gist. I don't ask. I believe your beliefs are just that, your beliefs. They are none of my business. Your sexuality goes in that catagory as well. I've found over the years that it has served me well because I don't get asked my religion. Other things I don't discuss is politics. Found its one of the best ways to lose a client. Or come in with your same sex partner, just roll with it and don't make a big deal because making an issue isn't going to change anything, right? I also don't tell racist jokes, political jokes, or religious jokes at work. Interesting though, dirty jokes are fine.
:trink39:

We operate our business the same way. We have lots of "gay" customers, often have to turn the air cooler they flame so badly. I don't talk church at the store unless I am asked, same with politics.

Had a lesbian work for us once, fooled us at first because she talked about her boyfriend. Didn't take me long to figure her out and run her off. But what was funny my neighbor stopped in one day. After 5 min he asks to go outside to talk. Outside he asks me why I hired a lesbian. I laughed and asked how he could tell that quick,. We have 6 employees, black and white. I know for sure which are Christians but 2 I don't know and won't ask. It's their business

You already know I will tell a dirty joke and enjoy Bourbon Street

[jazyd]

I can't tell you the last time somebody ask me what church I attended. It can say was at least more than 5 years ago. When sitting at a table and somebody say "lets pray", I sit quitely and respect THEIR beliefs by saying nothing. Note, my beliefs may or may not be to pray. My preference is to not let that cat out of the bag so to speak. To me that is between me and God. I see no advantage in any type of confrontation.

As for sexual orientation, sure, folks are going to know. I guess but when you make it obvious like the folks above its hard to take them serious when they complain about being singled out. Reminds me of the kid with the tatoo on his face who asks you "what are you staring at?". As I said, I'm fine with people doing their own thing so long as it doesn't interfer with others doing theirs

Doc, I seldom get asked where I go to church and I seldom ask anyone where they go unless it is obvious they are Christians. If I ask I just ask "if" they go

[Krank]

I edited the post simply for brefity

Question, how do folks come to know you're a non-christian? I mean I go about my life an folks don't know my religious beliefs or my sexuality etc.... unless I elect to let them know. In most cases I don't because to me its none of their business. To me, I really don't care what people "are". I don't care if they are jewish or christian or muslim or buddist...or gay or heterosexual...so long as they leave me alone and don't push it in my face. I do find it bothersome when I go down town and see the "gay pride parade"

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/gay_pride_parade.jpg

and the same people objecting over the "Christmas parade" because it has manger on a float (Google CHRISTMAS PARADE images and see if you can find a religious image). So if folks want to be left alone and not be discriminated against then just be live you life and don't force it on somebody else.

Your post SEEMS to have the embedded assumption either that I foist my Agnosticism on others without reason or that I should say nothing if others foist their religious beliefs on me. If I am wrong about that, I apologize.

We all lead different lives, have different opportunities for conversation, both in amount of potential conversations and what those conversations may or may not get into. We also have different potential encounters depending upon our jobs, where we live, what hobbies and other non-professional activities we prefer, so the amount of possible instances wherein religion may or may not come up can vary quite a bit from person to person.

If a religious person brings up their faith in a conversation, I don't just immediately blurt out "oh I'm Agnostic". Depending on what the reference is about, the conversation may or may not go in direction wherein I prefer to bring up MY beliefs. The truth is that I rarely bring up my beliefs before a religious person starts talking about theirs. If their reference is just about "what I did today", no big deal. If their reference is about inviting me to their church this Sunday, I really don't have much choice but to politely say "sorry, but I'm Agnostic", which sometimes yields politeness back and sometimes not so much.

Not really sure what else to tell you. I really don't care about anyone's parade, but I will say that Gay Pride Parades are way more entertaining than Easter Parades and such. Just an aesthetic preference. The politics of what folks prefer along those lines is meaningless to me, personally.

[Krank]

I'll say this Krank, there are certainly different motives for Christians to witness of what they believe. Some admittedly not so admirable...which is a result of human frailty.
But there are also those who TRULY believe in Jesus the Christ, Son of the Most High, and truly care that their good friends might miss the peace and great hope of eternal life in Christ.

Still, let's forget about the law and such for a moment.

I'd ask that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when folks witness about Christ and lump them all into one pile of self righteous religious megalomaniacs.
Because, I'm telling you for sure that I know Christ personally, and that God is who the Bible says he was/is/ and will be.

That's hard to believe (for a non believer) I understand, but it is as true as I can state it. Lot's of things happened to me and my family over the years and my earnest search yielded some amazing experiences that I'm not ready to share on a forum like this.

Yet my point is only this, if it is Real to a person, how can that believer in good conscience avoid sharing it to those they care about and respect?
Some are sincere in their sharing and not judgmental at all because honestly..their wants, desires, and actions did not magically change upon becoming Christian.
A lifetime of conforming to the image Christ portrayed will not erase the whole of a human weakness and the sin which is inherent to all of mankind.
And it is the tendency of many of us as Christians to joyfully judge others as being worse than we are, to feel more acceptable ourselves
.
Thankfully, we are judged by our mind's intent and our faith, or in other words for what we believe. And while making a true effort, for what we would do, if lacking the human tendency to do otherwise.

But I digress..

Basically, I just hope you don't discard the message entirely because you want so badly to shoot the messengers. At times we deserve it.
:trink39:

king, this won't answer every part of your post, but simply put... the vast majority of Christians that I encounter in my life are nice and tolerant folks. Most of them who are friends or family I love as much as anyone within those realms of my life.

My problem is with Biblical literalism and how it has seemingly influenced an absolutist mentality concerning folks who do NOT subscribe to either such literalism or even not subscribing to their faith at all.

Because of that stark viewpoint, complex human realities such as one's sexuality or one's gender are either misunderstood and/or strongly disavowed with out proper education on such matters.

I can only tell you that SOME extreme biblical literalists have participated in very disturbing instances that were definitively discriminatory, at the very least, against MANY of my GLBT friends. The stories I have been told are plentiful and can be terrible, but none of this has been a secret within the gay community for a long time, keeping in mind, just so you know, that I have also known plenty of GLBT who are dedicated Christians, both Protestant and Catholic. Those folks have sometimes had the most difficult road, but like anything, that depends on the specific path their lives have taken over time.

Don't worry about me. I never actively campaign against religion, but I do speak up when I believe innocent people, particularly if they are people I care deeply for, are suffering at the hands of an intolerant and overly strict interpretation of scripture. I also do not believe most Christians are bad or delusional or anything like that. Christianity, on the whole, can have a mixed bag of good and bad PR from the perspective of those of us who are non-religious. I try to remember that individuals can be louder than the group sometimes, but that doesn't mean they are saying anything worthwhile in terms of representing the group.

[kingcat]

king, this won't answer every part of your post, but simply put... the vast majority of Christians that I encounter in my life are nice and tolerant folks. Most of them who are friends or family I love as much as anyone within those realms of my life.

My problem is with Biblical literalism and how it has seemingly influenced an absolutist mentality concerning folks who do NOT subscribe to either such literalism or even not subscribing to their faith at all.

Because of that stark viewpoint, complex human realities such as one's sexuality or one's gender are either misunderstood and/or strongly disavowed with out proper education on such matters.

I can only tell you that SOME extreme biblical literalists have participated in very disturbing instances that were definitively discriminatory, at the very least, against MANY of my GLBT friends. The stories I have been told are plentiful and can be terrible, but none of this has been a secret within the gay community for a long time, keeping in mind, just so you know, that I have also known plenty of GLBT who are dedicated Christians, both Protestant and Catholic. Those folks have sometimes had the most difficult road, but like anything, that depends on the specific path their lives have taken over time.

Don't worry about me. I never actively campaign against religion, but I do speak up when I believe innocent people, particularly if they are people I care deeply for, are suffering at the hands of an intolerant and overly strict interpretation of scripture. I also do not believe most Christians are bad or delusional or anything like that. Christianity, on the whole, can have a mixed bag of good and bad PR from the perspective of those of us who are non-religious. I try to remember that individuals can be louder than the group sometimes, but that doesn't mean they are saying anything worthwhile in terms of representing the group.

Thanks for the response Krank. Interesting points made.

I'm reminded of one certain scripture . It reads, and I paraphrase somewhat..

Many will come to me in that day and say Lord, haven't we cast out devils and done many great things in your name. To which I will respond; depart from me you workers of iniquities[, I never knew you.

I'm a firm believer that as for professing Christianity, the measure we might use in judging others, will be equally applied to us.
Christ didn't come to condemn, but to save us from condemnation. Nor to judge us, because the law had already done that. And so I believe God.

This my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased...hear Him.

Thanks for listening.

[Doc]

Your post SEEMS to have the embedded assumption either that I foist my Agnosticism on others without reason or that I should say nothing if others foist their religious beliefs on me. If I am wrong about that, I apologize.

We all lead different lives, have different opportunities for conversation, both in amount of potential conversations and what those conversations may or may not get into. We also have different potential encounters depending upon our jobs, where we live, what hobbies and other non-professional activities we prefer, so the amount of possible instances wherein religion may or may not come up can vary quite a bit from person to person.

If a religious person brings up their faith in a conversation, I don't just immediately blurt out "oh I'm Agnostic". Depending on what the reference is about, the conversation may or may not go in direction wherein I prefer to bring up MY beliefs. The truth is that I rarely bring up my beliefs before a religious person starts talking about theirs. If their reference is just about "what I did today", no big deal. If their reference is about inviting me to their church this Sunday, I really don't have much choice but to politely say "sorry, but I'm Agnostic", which sometimes yields politeness back and sometimes not so much.

Not really sure what else to tell you. I really don't care about anyone's parade, but I will say that Gay Pride Parades are way more entertaining than Easter Parades and such. Just an aesthetic preference. The politics of what folks prefer along those lines is meaningless to me, personally.


I'm not making any assumptions at all. Just a simple question out of curiosity. In my life the topic does not come up. Is it because of the people I associate with don't want to invite me anywhere or do they assume I'm a devil worshipping pagan not worth salvation? Of course that does not bother me in the least.

[Krank]

I'm not making any assumptions at all. Just a simple question out of curiosity. In my life the topic does not come up. Is it because of the people I associate with don't want to invite me anywhere or do they assume I'm a devil worshipping pagan not worth salvation? Of course that does not bother me in the least.

Cool.

Somebody invite this devil worshipper to a Black Sabbath concert, and FAST!

[kingcat]

Cool.

Somebody invite this devil worshipper to a Black Sabbath concert, and FAST!

In my younger days, I covered almost every song on their first few albums. Even "fairies wear boots" War Pigs of course, Black Sabbath, Black sabbath, Paranoid, Children of the grave.. etc..Seriously. :)

Specialized in BS, Uriah Heep, and Grand Funk.

[PedroDaGr8]

Pedro,

While you know I agree with you deeply on your view of the Founders and the importance to prevent tyranny in its many forms, I will add that the worrisome part of the gay marriage situation isn't the issuing of a marriage license, it's the protected status thinking that is inextricably tied to it, and in its own way is a tyranny of the majority just with a different minority being repressed.

The baker who refused to do a cake for a gay wedding on religious grounds has been fined $135,000. clearly a punitive judgement b/c gay couples are part of a "protected class", you MUST do business with them if you do business with anyone. OK, that's fine, she was FINE to bake a cake for a gay person, the original complainant was a regular customer who is gay, she just objected on basis of her faith for participating in any way in something she sees as a sin.

The gay marriage thing doesn't worry me, but the fact that churches all over the country are rewriting their rules to have to find ways to prevent what they see as a sin before their God occurring in their own church is very disturbing.

The courts need to protect from that tyranny as well. Want to get married? have a ball. Want to not be part of it b/c you think being part of it is committing a sin? That should be OK too.

So it turns out the fine for failing to bake a cake was entirely WRONG. They were not fined for refusing to bake the cake. They were fined because they shared the home address/contact information of the couple opening them up to harrasment from the religious right.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/


the bakery owners shared the couple’s personal contact information – which led to death threats that nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children.

[jazyd]

So it turns out the fine for failing to bake a cake was entirely WRONG. They were not fined for refusing to bake the cake. They were fined because they shared the home address/contact information of the couple opening them up to harrasment from the religious right.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/

How about those that claim to be Christians who are gay, are they the religious left? So now I can talk all I want about the religious left just as you liberals do about Christians who are conservative, you love to make it sound so dirty so we are going to dirty the water here for your side. The hateful, meanspirited, religious left, can't wait to parade around in their flaming outfits, making fun of everyone who does not bow down to their 'way' of life. I realize you hate Christians and can't wait to criticize at every opportunity, have fun.

Now how about the business in Indiana that were targeted by your gay friends, the mean spirited, religious left? They had to leave their business, live in a hotel and hide out from the media, and the death threats to their family. why, because they said they would not sell to a gay marriage, they could come in and buy all they want as regular customers but they were not going to serve their needs for their wedding. Why don't you talk about that one? But that wouldn't fit your little agenda now would it.

[PedroDaGr8]

How about those that claim to be Christians who are gay, are they the religious left? So now I can talk all I want about the religious left just as you liberals do about Christians who are conservative, you love to make it sound so dirty so we are going to dirty the water here for your side. The hateful, meanspirited, religious left, can't wait to parade around in their flaming outfits, making fun of everyone who does not bow down to their 'way' of life. I realize you hate Christians and can't wait to criticize at every opportunity, have fun.

Now how about the business in Indiana that were targeted by your gay friends, the mean spirited, religious left? They had to leave their business, live in a hotel and hide out from the media, and the death threats to their family. why, because they said they would not sell to a gay marriage, they could come in and buy all they want as regular customers but they were not going to serve their needs for their wedding. Why don't you talk about that one? But that wouldn't fit your little agenda now would it.

Nice strawman argument. I don't condone death threats of any kind for ANY reason. I was equally out-spoken about the situation in Indiana as well. I might disagree with their thinking but NO ONE, and I do mean NO ONE deserves death threats or to fear for their safety. It doesn't matter if they are gay, straight, homophobe, flamming homosexual, racist, multiculturalist, communist or capitalist, no one deserves that.

As for hating Christians, it would be strange to hate Christians considering I am one myself. I just view my relationship with God as a deep and personal one. I have fluctuated into agnosticism at points and even at one point into atheism. I don't claim to be perfect, I am a sinner in God's eyes and always will be. I just pray for forgiveness and hope that one day he understands that I am just a man doing the best that I can.

I also believe strongly in the separation between church and state. I do NOT ever want to live in a theocracy. Theocracys are invariably horrible horrible things, maybe the only thing worse is Stalinism. Christian theocracies are no different, they have almost always, without fail become horribly unchristian as the state bends the laws of christ to fit the state. Instead, I believe the laws of the land are the laws of the land, no need to taint religion by mixing it with politics. Let them be what they may providing the most freedom possible. Then let the people decide for themselves what their religious views are and work within the laws. I don't believe my salvation is predicated on denying others happiness (even if said happiness is a sin). My salvation is based on God accepting my personal relationship with him. This is my belief, you might believe differently.

Also, I am libertarian, not liberal, a huge difference.

Yes there ARE religious left. They aren't necessarily gay, they tend to focus on helping the poor and unfortunate as Jesus instructed (often via socialism and things like that). They view helping their neighbor, the poor and the marginalized as being the most important of Jesus instructions. As such, they believe that anything that helps the poor is worth the cost.

[KeithKSR]

This will end up in Court. Laurel Bowman-Cryer chose to divulge the information by submitting the complaint form. The Oregon Labor Commission is not a civil court and shouldn't act as such.


Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed the complaint in January 2013, after she and her mother had met with Aaron Klein – who refused them service and quoted an anti-LGBT verse from Leviticus.

She filed her complaint by smartphone, which prevented her from seeing a disclaimer notifying her that her full name and address would be sent to the bakery owners – and Aaron Klein shared that information, along with the complaint, on his personal Facebook page.

[Krank]

In my younger days, I covered almost every song on their first few albums. Even "fairies wear boots" War Pigs of course, Black Sabbath, Black sabbath, Paranoid, Children of the grave.. etc..Seriously. :)

Specialized in BS, Uriah Heep, and Grand Funk.

king, I specialize in BS too. Just ask anyone in my family.

Seriously though, those first four Sabbath records still hold up. I particularly like the first, "Black Sabbath" and the third, "Master of Reality".

[Darrell KSR]

Hmm. I'm not taking sides on this (at this point) one way or another, but there's a lot of loosey-goosey characterization of what occurred.

This is the Order from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf

It's 122 pages long, with gosh-awful footnotes and single spacing, and by no means am I pretending to have read it. I read "at" it. But I read enough to get a decent idea of what they did.

First, they did not "fine" them at all. There is no fine. There is no punitive element to this case at all. Instead, it is damages awarded, $60,000 to one of the victims, and $75,000 to the other victim. Per the Order, "The Commissioner held that both A. Klein and M. Klein violated O.R.S. 659A.409." Specifically, "The Commissioner awarded Complainants $75,000 and $60,000 respectively, in damages for emotional and mental suffering resulting from the denial of service."

That's the Order. Damages awarded for denial of service.

Now, let's look at the statute itself. It's interesting. Although the Order characterizes it as a "denial of service" damages, let's read the statute:

Except as provided by laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served, and except for special rates or services offered to persons 50 years of age or older, it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older. [Formerly 659.037; 2003 c.521 §3; 2005 c.131 §2; 2007 c.100 §7]

(I'm assuming that's current enough, but I didn't get it from Westlaw or Lexis, and made no attempt to make certain it is current).

I think this is where the confusion lies.

It's not a violation to divulge the Complainant's address--it is a violation to publish THAT you're going to discriminate. And by publishing their complaint, they clearly were showing that's what they were doing.

That's how I read it. Again, I didn't pretend to read all 122 pages and footnotes. But it seems clear there's enough misinformation going on that I thought it deserved going to the source (the Order), which is easily available to media.


So it turns out the fine for failing to bake a cake was entirely WRONG. They were not fined for refusing to bake the cake. They were fined because they shared the home address/contact information of the couple opening them up to harrasment from the religious right.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/

[Edward100]

Everyone has an opinion.
“You have your rights, no one is taking your rights away. You are demanding special rights to determine which rights your can strip from others or infringe on others based on your religious beliefs.” Is this not what the “Same-sex” issue is doing. They are using the court system to dictate their views onto the public. If you think the public is for gay marriages, you haven’t talked to many people outside your own group. You want to put “religious beliefs” as a Christian only religion. Anyone can have a “religious belief”, even atheists.

The baker who refused to bake a cake is another point. As was stated, “The baker who refused to do a cake for a gay wedding on religious grounds has been fined $135,000. Clearly a punitive judgment b/c gay couples are part of a "protected class"; you MUST do business with them if you do business with anyone.” This is an infringement on the baker’s right to refuse service to anyone. However, because they are in a “Protected class” they take the baker to court and the baker gets a$135,000 fine. Was that the only baker in town? Didn’t the customer have a right to go elsewhere? Then the court ordeal was simply because “I’m in a protected class” and I’m going to sue you.” If that happened to a customer that was in the public, “UNPROTECTED class”, it would never seen the inside of a courtroom.

Summary, this country was founded on laws that were made for the masses, not just a small group. Now we have small groups that want to use the courts to advance their cause. This country did quite well with man/woman marriages for over two hundred years. Don’t you think there was a reason for it being that way? Look at the problems gay marriages have caused already. Governments have to rewrite laws to accommodate the court decisions. As was started earlier, “This issue of gay marriages is a way to get “A foot in the door”. Meaning there is more to the movement than just gay marriages. Gay marriages have opened an assortment of problems of which we haven’t seen the last.

[jazyd]

Very well said Edward and I have not thought of it in exactly the way you put it. But IMO this ruling has opened the door for so many things

Christian businesses and pastors/churches will be a target simply because gays can now go after those groups with open season and as you said the court has given them protected class ruling. What would happen if the business or pastor turned the tables and sued the gays for trying to force them to do something they don't want to do? Will the court look at them with favor?

And what about the man in Miss who this week was fined $10,000 because of an unnatural sex act with his horse. If gays want to marry, and what they do is certainly not natural, how can the court say a man can't marry his horse? Or a man wants 3 wives, a woman wants 2 husbands, a dad wants to marry his daughter or son? I mean the court says gays have the right to marry, why shouldn't these others? Where do you stop it? Will the religious left say no? They would not have any good reason.

Now I want to thank doc and citizen for their reasonable discussion without rants or name calling. As a Christian I appreciate that

I also want to say that after discussing with many learned Christians in the last week, for those like doc and citizen people like Pedro are really more like the antichrist in that they claim to be a Christian but give false testimony and false witness to what the Bible says. He and those like him want the Bible to be want they want and reflect their beliefs but it is not that way.. Either you accept Gods word and Jesus teaching or you reject it. Much like pres Jimmy Carter, they reject the parts they don't like and act is if it isn't in the Bible. Carter says Jesus would want gays to marry but admits he has no scripture to base it on. Pedro says the ruling is a great and wonderful day and he ignores and rejects scripture. Some like to say it's only in the Old Testament but ib I Corinthians 6:9-10 in the New Testament it says....do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor HOMOSEXUAL offenders nor thieves nor greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Zholy Spirit who is in you, who. You have received from God. You were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
In Galatians 5-19 it says....the acts of sinful nature are obvious sexual immorality...I warn you as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the Kingdom of a God.

The New Testament is blunt in talking about homosexuals, however if they repent and truly mean it and live a new clean life they can be washed and live in a Gods grace.

There are various scriptures that are open to debate but not homosexual sin. They can go to church all they want, they and the liberal Chridtian left lime Pedro can make all the claims they want but they have no scripture to back their claims. For those that are not Christians or you are believers but don't want institutionalized church do not believe those like Pedro, they do not speak truthfully, they give false witness and testimony. They have bought the lie

As Kingcat said. God has said many will call His name on judgement day but He will declare He does not know them

[CitizenBBN]

If not accepting the literal word of the Bible makes one an anti-christ, I'm in big trouble.

[jazyd]

If not accepting the literal word of the Bible makes one an anti-christ, I'm in big trouble.

Not what I said, you are much smarter than that.

[kingcat]

I certainly can't claim to be a college educated theologian, so I say this only as someone who honestly prayed to God for understanding from my youth up (being torn between several religions)

There is only one sin that can't be forgiven.

Even when times past are revealed as they still exist while we stand before the very One who created it.

Even as those things done in secret, whether in defiance or in ignorance, will be brought to light for every man and woman.
And then we will understand that God cannot fellowship with those actions, because if they are not covered from view by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, they continue to exist just as Einstein imagined.
God is both the Beginning and End. Not limited to our one directional journey through time and our convenient habit of burying the past.
It all exists simultaneously to our Creator, and without constraints of any kind...known or unknown to mankind.

So there is one sin that results in death and separation from God and heaven.
That unforgivable sin is non belief...just as it was in the Garden of Eden.

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat:
But of the tree that gives the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat: for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

God's word accomplishes exactly what He says, and He had to make a way for us to find leading back to Him, and of our own free will. He did just that.

So there is one sin for which there is no forgiveness, and that is to deny this..

I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live

And whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?

..Jesus

The whole of Christianity is defined there. And a great price was paid for each of us to cover the most enormous of sins. If we believe that, we naturally strive to get closer and closer to God.
Because we love Him, not because we fear Him.

And God teaches us. Real love covers a multitude of sin.

I had to add this one post and promise not to make as habit of it on this forum.

[Doc]

Everyone has an opinion.
“You have your rights, no one is taking your rights away. You are demanding special rights to determine which rights your can strip from others or infringe on others based on your religious beliefs.” Is this not what the “Same-sex” issue is doing. They are using the court system to dictate their views onto the public. If you think the public is for gay marriages, you haven’t talked to many people outside your own group. You want to put “religious beliefs” as a Christian only religion. Anyone can have a “religious belief”, even atheists.

The baker who refused to bake a cake is another point. As was stated, “The baker who refused to do a cake for a gay wedding on religious grounds has been fined $135,000. Clearly a punitive judgment b/c gay couples are part of a "protected class"; you MUST do business with them if you do business with anyone.” This is an infringement on the baker’s right to refuse service to anyone. However, because they are in a “Protected class” they take the baker to court and the baker gets a$135,000 fine. Was that the only baker in town? Didn’t the customer have a right to go elsewhere? Then the court ordeal was simply because “I’m in a protected class” and I’m going to sue you.” If that happened to a customer that was in the public, “UNPROTECTED class”, it would never seen the inside of a courtroom.

Summary, this country was founded on laws that were made for the masses, not just a small group. Now we have small groups that want to use the courts to advance their cause. This country did quite well with man/woman marriages for over two hundred years. Don’t you think there was a reason for it being that way? Look at the problems gay marriages have caused already. Governments have to rewrite laws to accommodate the court decisions. As was started earlier, “This issue of gay marriages is a way to get “A foot in the door”. Meaning there is more to the movement than just gay marriages. Gay marriages have opened an assortment of problems of which we haven’t seen the last.


You have the facts wrong. You need to read the thread. Unfortunately most have the facts wrong. The fine wasn't for refusing to do the cake. Darrell does a good job of explaining it. The refusal to bake a cake is a misconception. If a business doesn't want to perform a service, not doing it is quite easy not to do legally. All one needs to do is price themselves out of the market. I do it all time. I have clients and patients I don't want to treat for a multitude of reasons. Their bills go up until they go elsewhere.

But gays are not faultless in this either. Lets looks that Chick Filet. I still hear about how they discriminate against gays. What a bunch of crap. They don't. The owner stated his religious beliefs. They were his religious beliefs period. He believes homosexuality is wrong, nothing more. His company does not nor has it ever been accuse or convicted of discrimination in its hiring or serving practices yet the intolerant left who demand tolerance have painted them the evil villain. There is a difference between somebodies beliefs and their actions, and until people realize this, both sides bear the blame.

[CitizenBBN]

Not what I said, you are much smarter than that.

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek, probably should have used a smiley.

But in seriousness I don't think many Christians would see my interpretation of scripture as "false witness", but they could couldn't they? I do find that to be shaky ground, the history of Christianity is laden with people accused similarly who in some cases later were seen as founders of one or another Protestant faith.

I don't want to say that everything is fungible, but I do think the Bible is a tough book to be absolute about, esp. given its origins and that it is a compiled book written by many people and with many other scriptures left out. There are more than a few tenets in there that aren't followed by many Christian groups, which is why bacon is so popular in this country.

[jazyd]

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek, probably should have used a smiley.

But in seriousness I don't think many Christians would see my interpretation of scripture as "false witness", but they could couldn't they? I do find that to be shaky ground, the history of Christianity is laden with people accused similarly who in some cases later were seen as founders of one or another Protestant faith.

I don't want to say that everything is fungible, but I do think the Bible is a tough book to be absolute about, esp. given its origins and that it is a compiled book written by many people and with many other scriptures left out. There are more than a few tenets in there that aren't followed by many Christian groups, which is why bacon is so popular in this country.

Chuck, there are many parts of the Bible open to interreputation, I know I spelled that wrong senior moment. Take Revelation the whole book, if anyone tells you that totally understand it just walk away before you call them aliar because they don't totally understand it.
Two churches I have been a member of here in Miss. The first that we were members of for 21 years, I was baptized again there, accepted Jesus there and was ordained a deacon there. The second, where I am a member now, I have been and am now a deacon there. In 2Timothy, Timothy lays out the requirements for being a deacon and he says that we shall be but the husband of one wife. Now, does that mean only one wife forever and never being divorced, or does it mean one wife at that moment in time. The first church I belonged to and was ordained in didn't seem to care as half the deacon council seemed to have been married more than once with at least one guy being married 5 times...I think he must have been a nut....and the church I am at now says you can never have been divorced even though the Bible does say a man can divorce his wife if she has been unfaithful. Personally I don't agree with either church but since it isn't spelled out I accept it, no big deal to me even though I don't think a man should be married 5 times and still serve as a deacon.

But the teachings of God and Jesus, and Paul is very clear about homosexuals, they will not inherit the kingdom of God if they continue to live in that sin. Can they be washed, certainly and it is spelled out that way. But again imo, when someone claims to be a Christian but then openly proclaims it is a great and wonderful day that gays can marry, he or she is openly putting out false witness and words that can influence others into thinking that the gay lifestyle is fine and dandy. For me what they do in their house I could care less, but if offends me to see they are able to marry and their parades totally offend me.

I don't criticize different denominations like some unless they openly disobey what they Bible explicityl says. I belong to a Southern Baptist Church because of my wife. Was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools, taught by nuns. And I disagree with those in the Baptist Church that claim Catholics are a part of a cult. Not my job to judge that. I know Catholics that are much better Christians than baptists.

I just want those that are non believers or kinda believers that are seeking the truth to know that God condemns the homosexual lifestyle in both the New and Old Testament and any that say otherwise is lying. And they are much like the antiChrist that spreads false witness. As bad as my time before God on judgement day will be, I don't want to be anywhere near Jimmy Carter unless I am in a balcony watching. :)

I really have gotten a better picture of you and doc thru this, have enjoyed reading what each of you have had to say. Would love to sit down with you sometime at a game, you can have a beer and I will drink my coke like I did with doc and Mick. I don't drink because of the alcoholics in my family.

[Krank]

http://news.yahoo.com/man-stabs-several-people-jerusalem-gay-pride-parade-163839733.html

[Crazy4Blue]

http://news.yahoo.com/man-stabs-several-people-jerusalem-gay-pride-parade-163839733.html

Not sure I understand your meaning behind posting this link? Is it, because one Orthodox Jew acts insane that that means all religious people are bad?

[Darrell KSR]

What a nutjob.

Police said the attacker, Yishai Schlissel, who was arrested at the scene for Thursday's attack, had been released from prison just three weeks ago, after serving a sentence for stabbing several people at the parade in 2005.

[Krank]

Not sure I understand your meaning behind posting this link? Is it, because one Orthodox Jew acts insane that that means all religious people are bad?

No.

It was posted because there seems to still be a lot of folks who either scoff or shoulder-shrug that GLBT folks are not at risk in modern society AND that religious extremism has a not so great history along those lines. That is why I have tried to make very clear throughout this thread that the problem, IMO, is with extremists who sometimes carry a lot of weight in our culture.

Absolutist biblical literalism, in my view, is extremist, or close to it, in this country, particularly at this time. It is not a majority view, IMO, when all Christians are counted. Far from it, in my view.

Hate crimes on GLBT folks have sometimes come from religious extremists in this country. I also personally have more than a few GLBT friends who have, quite literally, escaped from certain violent danger from within their own extremist families, so I thought it worth noting, for those who either have no idea or who are skeptical, that it is STILL dangerous to be gay.

The fact that Jerusalem can be a microcosm of multiple religious traditions, including extremists from Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, makes a story like the one linked even more interesting, thus I thought it worthwhile to post.

Why was the most negative conclusion the one you jumped to first? Do you think all Agnostics like me hate all religious people, believe they are all insane, and believe their takes on their belief systems are all identical and worthless?

[Krank]

What a nutjob.

Police said the attacker, Yishai Schlissel, who was arrested at the scene for Thursday's attack, had been released from prison just three weeks ago, after serving a sentence for stabbing several people at the parade in 2005.

Yeah, somehow he got by a ton of security (I don't doubt this because we are talking about Jerusalem and there is NOWHERE in the world that has to be on high alert as much as that city), hid in some supermarket alcove (memory not clear there), and leaped out, knife bared, when the paraders got started.

Nuts like him believe THEY are worthy of judging on behalf of their god, which is unquestionably a sin, in and of itself, but that matters not to such evil people. Selective self-control and selective biblical interpretation is an unfortunate hypocrisy visited upon by religious extremists. They typically tunnel-vision upon one sin or political notion and obsession takes over reality.

Taking the leap, from extremist belief to planned violence, is something our world has to do something about, meaning that IMO there are relatively few who would cross that line on their own, but the more world population increases, the more nuts of that breed will be out there, and the more diligent world society needs to be in ensuring that peaceful people, whose so-called "sin" occurs in private behind closed doors, are not attacked for that private, consenting adults activity.

JMO.

[kingcat]

True belief cuts both ways..

It is much easier to judge the world as undeserving, than it is to forsake it and personally take the good news to everyone who will hear.

And I'm as guilty as the next person.

[jazyd]

This is about individual rights, not a religion, not states rights. The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority in this country.

We have the rule of law: "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". I dont see any qualifications in that statement, do you?

I support the constitution and all of the amendments, and the idea of limited government. Libertarians like me have supported these ideas for forty years.

We left a little bit of the Dark Ages behind yesterday. The evil of fanatic religious fundamentalism at work every where in the world; but not here in our counntry. I'm so proud.

WOW, didn't know I was a fanatic as in an evil person because I oppose gay marriage, how nice of you to notice. And the 'guy' who dresses in a dress, curlers, makeup, high heels or the one who marches down a street with his ass hanging out of a leather piece of whatever he is normal and ok and right with the world. interesting. So the rights of 2% are more important than me, interesting. And the dark ages, hmmm, well I think I prefer the dark ages vs the flaming ass walking down the street flaunting his new sexuality while sucking a '....'

About that debt doc, wont' happen because DC and politicians from all over are not worried about you and me, they are worried about the smaller % in most everything. Get our money, give it away to those who refuse to work, take care of the 2%, pad their accounts, give it to countries and 'leaders' who hate us, and screw the guy who owns a business or who works. I think that about sums up politicians

[jazyd]

I have to wonder how our Founding Fsthers would feel when they wrote in the declaration that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their "Creator" with certain unalienable rights thst they would be called "evil religious fanatics" for expressing their faith.

They probably would have gotten on the boat and gone back east