 |
 |
God and Gay Marriage
| July 2nd, 2015 at 2:07:01 PM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
Yes, it is. But it's the conservatives who're making it.
I agree the whack job lawyer in California is not a thinking person. BUt what do you say about those proposing to impeach the five justices who voted for the decision? Or those proposing, again, to amend the Constitution to outlaw same sex marriage?
Not only are there people like that, there are people serving as apologists for them. And the whole "religious liberty" debacle began with a suit filed against a baker for just that reason. It's all connected. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| July 2nd, 2015 at 2:29:58 PM permalink | |
| FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
Correct me if I am wrong but it was a same-sex wedding cake the bakers refused to make. All of this just makes me think again what a mess we have made of things. Why couldn't the state just leave marriage as it is and provide equal rights to same-sex unions. So sad. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
| July 2nd, 2015 at 2:30:01 PM permalink | |
| Dalex64 Member since: Mar 8, 2014 Threads: 3 Posts: 3687 |
Freedom to perform a ceremony, perhaps yes. People have been having commitment ceremonies for quite some time now. But it wouldn't be recognized, and it wouldn't be immunity from prosecution if what they did was not only not recognized by the state or federal government, but was actually illegal. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
| July 2nd, 2015 at 2:55:29 PM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
There's not such thing as a same sex wedding cake. How does it differ from an opposite sex wedding cake?
You know the maxim "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"? I think it should be amended to include "and kick out your lukewarm supporters." Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| July 2nd, 2015 at 3:08:32 PM permalink | |
| Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25013 |
Are you not getting this on purpose, or are you just not looking at it in the correct way. Gays want real equality in all things, not some fake equality that still brands them as different. This reminds me of the integration of schools. In some Southern states, they said OK, we'll let Blacks in, but they'll have separate classrooms from the White students. That's fair, they said, same school, same education. That's what you're doing. You want straight couples to have something not offered to Gay couples, marriage under the law. You want the 'rights' to be equal, but still set Gays apart as being different somehow. The Church has a bigoted view on this subject, you view homosexuals as fundamentally different than straights, when they're not different at all. So, as in the past, you will be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
| July 2nd, 2015 at 3:48:40 PM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
The history lesson for the day is the aftermath of the US Civil War. In 1865 slavery ended. Blacks were recognized as citizens and "given" the right to vote. Slowly, over a rather short time span, this right was taken away. Anti-miscegenation laws were instituted, as were segregation laws and other measures. It took a century, one whole century, for passage of the civil Rights Act to restore the recognition of near-full rights. It took a few more years for the Supreme Court to strike down the last anti-miscegenation laws. This is what happens when you leave things to the states. I grant you things were worse then. If Joe married Susan in, say, California, and they then moved to Virginia, they could both be arrested if one of them happened to be black. No state imposed penalties for merely being on a same sex marriage, but the adverse consequences were plentiful even so. And here's your philosophy lesson for the day: Rights are universal and inalienable. This means we all have the same rights, and these are inherent due to our nature as human beings. They cannot be given or granted. They simply are. They can be violated, breached or suppressed. Be it through legislation, court action, policy, etc. In some cases this is even proper. When we put someone in prison, we suppress their right to liberty, and other ancillary rights along the way as well (like free speech, and very likely their right to pursue happiness). This is proper, as I said, but it's also very serious. It should be done only in retaliation for a serious violation of someone else's rights, like theft, murder, fraud, assault, rape, sexual assault, child molestation, child pornography, etc. Never for behaviors which harm no third parties, even if they are self-destructive, wrong, immoral or extremely distasteful to others (like using drugs, prostitution, homosexual sex, etc). When a group of people have their natural rights suppressed by a government, be it local, state or federal, it is their right to seek redress by any legal means necessary at first, and by any means necessary when legal remedies have been exhausted. They need not wait for a consensus in the larger society, though that may help, and they need not wait for legislative or executive action. The Civil Rights Act did NOT grant African Americans the full rights of citizenship, even if it's worded that way, rather it recognized those rights and further recognized the government's obligation to protect and safeguard those rights. The recent decision striking down all same sex marriage bans, similarly, does not grant same sex couples the right to marry, but rather recognizes that right. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| July 2nd, 2015 at 4:08:51 PM permalink | |
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 189 Posts: 18770 |
It's like the separate but equal Catholic birthday party. 90 people get one room and 10 who show up aren't invited to that room, and directed to another room. It has an odd stink about it. Same as all segregation does for dubious reasons. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
| July 2nd, 2015 at 5:17:35 PM permalink | |
| reno Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 58 Posts: 1384 |
Gallup has it at 60%.  In terms of symbolism, when Disney lights up the castle in rainbow lights to celebrate a controversial Supreme Court ruling, that's a big red flag that this battle is over. I know Glenn Beck wants to boycott Disney, but it's not that simple. He'll have to boycott AT&T, Apple, Target, Hilton, American Airlines, Kelloggs, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Delta, Budweiser, Google, even Tide. Looks like he'll need to cancel both the MasterCard and the Visa.  |
| July 2nd, 2015 at 6:30:30 PM permalink | |
| Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25013 | Disney has always been Gay friendly, why was this a surprise. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
| July 2nd, 2015 at 6:32:09 PM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
Disney has been supportive before, and taken the heat for it. I don't know if it offers benefits to same sex partners, as many corporations do already. But it has hosted "Gay" Days in its parks numerous times. This means nothing more than several LGBT groups will be in a given park on such days, but it's supportive to state LGBT people are welcome. At a certain time it would even have been revolutionary.
Oh, many brands and corporations showed support, some all through the various Pride events as well. And many, as I noted above, already offered benefits to same sex partners, not just before last week's decision, but before even 2004 when a state first recognized same sex marriage. Boycotts were encouraged then. Seeing how most of those companies have fared since then, you can tell how well they worked. Boycotts are largely ineffective, unless some other big company or several get involved in it. I suppose a local one might work, in a small enough town. With social media it's even worse. Last week a Girl Scout troop allegedly returned a donation for $100,000 because the donor stipulated it not be used for transgender girls. The troop launched an online fundraiser and got around $225,000, or so the stories on the web claim. I'm always a bit skeptical of such things, and who knows how much was actually given and how much merely pledged. But if you get, say, Coca Cola to stop buying corn syrup, for example, from some company for some reason, then you'll see results. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |