twa Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 In the same way that voting was "redefined" in 1868, 1870, 1920, 1961, 1964, 1966, and 1971? Yes, then it's obviously fine to "redefine" marriage by eliminating discrimination in its legal sanctioning and recognition. Honestly... The bleaker the fight against marriage equality gets, the more ridiculous the antics become. Wasn't personhood redefined repeatedly as well? If it is equality you are after I will support opening it to all, not just the select few.....I've always thought marriage was something fundamentally different .....maybe it shouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Long story short, I don't believe it is a religious thing coming from an honest but misguided place as Burgold stated. I think it is based on long accepted and upheld societal norms and gender and sex roles being challenged and people using and being misguided by religion to resist change to those norms. After all, if any one entity throughout man's history can be pointed to as being THE biggest opponent to societal change, to holding things back, it's religion. Jesus' own actions show he would never have supported such laws. I think a honest look at history shows the religious have been in the forefront of societal change. my personal beliefs proscribe denying service for such things, but I have to say I define marriage in a very particular way (one I see no reason Jesus would oppose) that fundamentally seems to differ from yours. Should I impose one or both on another?.....what will you impose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I think a honest look at history shows the religious have been in the forefront of societal change. I think there's at least examples where that happened. I think the abolition movement began as a religious one. (Although, was it the Christians, or the Quakers?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Well, would you say changes in culture dictate changes in religious interpretation/acceptance/dogma/beliefs etc etc or do you think it is the other way around? Which gets the other moving? Is it the same for other countries? It seems like most people that still discriminate against homosexuals base it on their interpretation of whatever their religion is, but at the same time a ton of religious folks thing they should be treated as equals in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Wasn't personhood redefined repeatedly as well? If it is equality you are after I will support opening it to all, not just the select few.....I've always thought marriage was something fundamentally different .....maybe it shouldn't be. If it's corporate marriage you're after, worry not. A great many of them are in bed together already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 If it's corporate marriage you're after, worry not. A great many of them are in bed together already. they certainly already have civil unions and incestual relations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Well, would you say changes in culture dictate changes in religious interpretation/acceptance/dogma/beliefs etc etc or do you think it is the other way around? Which gets the other moving? Is it the same for other countries? It seems like most people that still discriminate against homosexuals base it on their interpretation of whatever their religion is, but at the same time a ton of religious folks thing they should be treated as equals in society. Hard to say which moves first, but Moses blamed the peoples hearts for change.....people usually get what they want(like Israel a king) people talk a lot about equality(on both sides), not so sure they actually embrace it though http://www.redstate.com/2014/02/21/yes-jesus-would-bake-a-cake-for-a-gay-person/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 they certainly already have civil unions and incestual relations And zero interest in letting the government know precisely who they're screwing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 And zero interest in letting the government know precisely who they're screwing. I thought the govt was in the pile humping away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 http://www.redstate.com/2014/02/21/yes-jesus-would-bake-a-cake-for-a-gay-person/ The disagreement comes on one issue only — should a Christian provide goods and services to a gay wedding. Funny. Neither the Kansas law which began this thread, nor the Arizona law which was brought into the thread later, limits themselves to that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Funny. Neither the Kansas law which began this thread, nor the Arizona law which was brought into the thread later, limits themselves to that question. You are correct, although I do believe these legislations stem from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Funny. Neither the Kansas law which began this thread, nor the Arizona law which was brought into the thread later, limits themselves to that question. The Kansas one largely does, moreso to the status(SSM/CU) though.....the Ariz one is certainly rather broad, but seems directed at ALLOWING a religious defense equal scrutiny from my limited review Chipwich is right it is largely in response to the court rulings mandating business/individual participation are you at all sympathetic to individuals being compelled to violate their beliefs(whether they are right or wrong) simply to be in business or hold a job? should they have to comply or restrict themselves from those positions/lines of work?...wouldn't that be discrimination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think a honest look at history shows the religious have been in the forefront of societal change. my personal beliefs proscribe denying service for such things, but I have to say I define marriage in a very particular way (one I see no reason Jesus would oppose) that fundamentally seems to differ from yours. Should I impose one or both on another?.....what will you impose? marriage in this country, in so far as it is concerned with the law and benefits thereof, should adhere strictly to equality. Just as discrimination based on gender is typically not allowed in every other legal matter, so too should it not matter with legally recognized marriage. As I said earlier, as far as polygamy and other issues, they are different forms of marriage, different dynamics, and not part of this conversation (though definitely a part of the entire marriage argument). I don't know of nay legal arguments/justifications against polygamy (I just have a feeling you may steer the convo back that way so am addressing that now). what should be imposed is the same non-discrimination in legal recognition of marriage, in terms of gender, that is applied in every other legal facet. and my look at history was honest if you were implying otherwise with that first line. Religion has mostly only been in the forefront of societal change for a long period in man's history because religion was such a big part of man's life for so long. I didn't suggest it hasn't been a cause for change at times, but in terms of social paradigms there's no denying it has stifled such change significantly and still to this day does and has caused or allowed considerable harm to continue in favor of ideology. Not say there aren't positives to religion, but in terms of the topic at hand it's mostly ugly and remains a final, and sadly welcoming, bastion for bigots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The Kansas one largely does, moreso to the status(SSM/CU) though.....the Ariz one is certainly rather broad, but seems directed at ALLOWING a religious defense equal scrutiny from my limited review Chipwich is right it is largely in response to the court rulings mandating business/individual participation are you at all sympathetic to individuals being compelled to violate their beliefs(whether they are right or wrong) simply to be in business or hold a job? should they have to comply or restrict themselves from those positions/lines of work?...wouldn't that be discrimination should they be allowed to restrict others based on religious grounds? Government tends not to infringe upon religion unless religion is infringing upon it. In this case religion is being used to circumvent law and a founding principle of this country of equal treatment. being forced not to discriminate is not a form of discrimination. Misguidance and violating the spirit of the Constitution are not excused by religion. But tell me, do you expect any of the Christians in favor of this proposed law to support a practicing Muslim if he decides not to serve unescorted women? I highly doubt it. Are you at all sympathetic to those practicing Muslims and the sacrifices they have to make to their religion to be business owners in this country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 marriage in this country, in so far as it is concerned with the law and benefits thereof, should adhere strictly to equality. Just as discrimination based on gender is typically not allowed in every other legal matter, so too should it not matter with legally recognized marriage. As I said earlier, as far as polygamy and other issues, they are different forms of marriage, different dynamics, and not part of this conversation (though definitely a part of the entire marriage argument). I don't know of nay legal arguments/justifications against polygamy (I just have a feeling you may steer the convo back that way so am addressing that now). what should be imposed is the same non-discrimination in legal recognition of marriage, in terms of gender, that is applied in every other legal facet. and my look at history was honest if you were implying otherwise with that first line. Religion has mostly only been in the forefront of societal change for a long period in man's history because religion was such a big part of man's life for so long. I didn't suggest it hasn't been a cause for change at times, but in terms of social paradigms there's no denying it has stifled such change significantly and still to this day does and has caused or allowed considerable harm to continue in favor of ideology. Not say there aren't positives to religion, but in terms of the topic at hand it's mostly ugly and remains a final, and sadly welcoming, bastion for bigots. I think everyone including you tries to oversimplify the matter. To me this whole matter has to do with not forcing litigious action against religious organizations to do something "against their religion." I guarantee there will be lawsuits against a church because they wouldn't marry a same sex couple. Whereas they could be married, just not at the church they choose, just as I couldn't be married in the Catholic church my wife wanted due to my being a protestant. But with same sex marriage you open the door for litigation. Do your thing, just let me do my thing. Unfortunately the laws are written to leave the door wide open and look like discrimination. As a business owner, I don't give a damn if you are gay or straight as long as I make a dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 should they be allowed to restrict others based on religious grounds? Government tends not to infringe upon religion unless religion is infringing upon it. In this case religion is being used to circumvent law and a founding principle of this country of equal treatment. being forced not to discriminate is not a form of discrimination. Misguidance and violating the spirit of the Constitution are not excused by religion. But tell me, do you expect any of the Christians in favor of this proposed law to support a practicing Muslim if he decides not to serve unescorted women? I highly doubt it. Are you at all sympathetic to those practicing Muslims and the sacrifices they have to make to their religion to be business owners in this country? how is what is happening not compelling service?...something not exactly constitutional I'm sympathetic to any religious belief(excluding violence), I'm also sympathetic to the business owner just trying to make a living do we change the law that a devout muslim/jew meat market now has to sell pork?...it is just meat,not terribly unlike what they already sell especially in a state where selling pork is banned ya'll wish to redefine it and force it's recognition/acceptance on those that reside in a state that LAWFULLY forbids it. who is infringing who here ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 how is what is happening not compelling service?...something not exactly constitutional I'm sympathetic to any religious belief(excluding violence), I'm also sympathetic to the business owner just trying to make a living do we change the law that a devout muslim/jew meat market now has to sell pork?...it is just meat,not terribly unlike what they already sell especially in a state where selling pork is banned ya'll wish to redefine it and force it's recognition/acceptance on those that reside in a state that LAWFULLY forbids it. who is infringing who here ? Choosing what to sell is not the same as choosing what to sell. The last time denying services was legally condones we had "separate but equal." So, are you saying that denying service to someone based on skin color is ok? Those African Americans will just have to go 3 towns over to find a place to stay, and hitch a ride to get there since cab owners are denying them services too. Now that will apply to gays and the same problems will ensue. Yeah, seems legit and exactly what America is all about. Seriously, how can you support that when we have the history of separate but equal as a strong parallel? Like it or not, a business owner is operating on American soil so no, they don't have absolute freedom in operating their business. They have to pay workers a certain wage, they have to have various safety features in their building, they have to operate according to various laws as it is, so legality should also extend to their customer base, in this case legal protection against discrimination. And again, NATIONAL law trumps state when it comes to equal rights and crap like this is why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think everyone including you tries to oversimplify the matter. To me this whole matter has to do with not forcing litigious action against religious organizations to do something "against their religion." I guarantee there will be lawsuits against a church because they wouldn't marry a same sex couple. Whereas they could be married, just not at the church they choose, just as I couldn't be married in the Catholic church my wife wanted due to my being a protestant. But with same sex marriage you open the door for litigation. Do your thing, just let me do my thing. Unfortunately the laws are written to leave the door wide open and look like discrimination. As a business owner, I don't give a damn if you are gay or straight as long as I make a dollar. I would disagree with those lawsuits and forcing such marriages on a religion is IMO unconstitutional since the Supreme Court has historically sought to not have religion infringed upon so long as religion does not violate it. You can't force a religion to conduct a marriage against it's beliefs, BUT at the flip side is true too. No religion should be able to force another to NOT marry a gay couple if that religion wants to or if the state wants to uphold gay marriage in civil unions conducted in court. I think this is how litigation would ultimately rule, especially if it found it's way up to SCOTUS. They won't uphold a law that infringes on religion,but also won't let religion infringe on citizens. I think the "do your thing, I'll do my thing" is a great way to sum it up. Now, I did say in previous post to twa that businesses should not be allowed to deny service to customers based on discriminatory reasons that violate equal treatment due to legality (it's one of the reasons for separate but equal being overturned and IMO this is a similar treatment). However, in the case of marriage there is freedom of religion. So religions are free to determine their followers, who they give services to, etc. much like a private club is allowed to have exclusive membership, whereas a business is a for profit entity and subject to many laws of operation. SO I just want to put that distinction out there since it could be a likely retort when looking at both my recent posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Chipwich is right it is largely in response to the court rulings mandating business/individual participation There are no such rulings. The only rulings are that the government may not legislate discrimination. Now, there are some jurisdictions which have passed legislation which does make it illegal for businesses to discriminate against gays. But that only happens if a particular jurisdiction chooses to impose such legislation. I think it's a pretty safe bet that neither Kansas nor Arizona have done so. Nor are they about to. It is not necessary for me to pass legislation to protect me from legislation which does not exist, and cannot be passed by anybody but me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I guarantee there will be lawsuits against a church because they wouldn't marry a same sex couple. Whereas they could be married, just not at the church they choose, just as I couldn't be married in the Catholic church my wife wanted due to my being a protestant. But with same sex marriage you open the door for litigation. And there will be lawsuits for people playing loud music, for painting their house the wrong color, for being too fat to wear spandex, for not mowing your yard enough, and for wearing white after Labor Day. The law allows people to sue for whole bunches of stupid reasons. But we do not pass special legislation, declaring that it is illegal to sue someone for wearing white after Labor Day. But let's stick with your examples. You picked two good ones. (In fact, the ones I was going to pick). Do we need legislation declaring that it is illegal for someone to sue a Catholic Church for refusing to marry a Protestant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 are you at all sympathetic to individuals being compelled to violate their beliefs(whether they are right or wrong) simply to be in business or hold a job? should they have to comply or restrict themselves from those positions/lines of work?...wouldn't that be discrimination That line of argument though is a very slippery slope. What kind of things is it OK for someone to discriminate on based on their personal beliefs? Where do you draw the line? Is there a line? Its a dangerous road to go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 That line of argument though is a very slippery slope. What kind of things is it OK for someone to discriminate on based on their personal beliefs? Where do you draw the line? Is there a line? Its a dangerous road to go down. we seem already on that road and these bills and rulings are about the lines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 we seem already on that road and these bills and rulings are about the lines I would agree that these bills and rulings are about the lines - but I would say they are more about trying to put the car in reverse looking backwards at the road most people have left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 . But that only happens if a particular jurisdiction chooses to impose such legislation. Jurisdiction is a funny thing....like recognition of SSM marriage being imposed in jurisdictions where it was not imposed by legislation I would agree that these bills and rulings are about the lines - but I would say they are more about trying to put the car in reverse looking backwards at the road most people have left. if most people have left how do you think the bills pass? it is more like that we travel different roads with different destinations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Jurisdiction is a funny thing....like recognition of SSM marriage being imposed in jurisdictions where it was not imposed by legislation Now point me at the jurisdiction where laws saying businesses cannot discriminate against gays are being imposed. You know, the rulings that these bills honoring discrimination are supposedly being passed, in response to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.