Started By
Message
re: Indiana Religious Freedom Bill
Posted on 3/27/15 at 8:55 am to the808bass
Posted on 3/27/15 at 8:55 am to the808bass
quote:
I would argue the factoids have in large part driven the acceptance.
No! The egg came first!
I am of the mind acceptance came because people have realized the really don't care if someone is gay or straight and gays should get the same treatment as anyone else. I'll cede the factoids and narrative developed has certainly helped accelerate the process. The same thing with marijuana legalization. The general direction has been toward legalization for years now, but the pace has rapidly accelerated.
quote:
And yes, I do hate factoids driving narratives. When a quasi-scientific study shows up on the cover of TIME (or a gross misinterpretation of an actual study), you know what's coming.
I think you hate narratives driving factoids. It's egg first damn it!
You're skeptical approach to narratives is a wise one. The right story shared with the masses can change the world. Us humans love stories, so it is an effective tool. Sometimes the narrative does a good (as I think it does with our gay issues). That's not the case generally.
1
Posted on 3/27/15 at 9:03 am to dead money
Just checking this morning and BAM! this really escalated. For all those addressing my scenario...just get to the point. I don't know all the medical laws, but please work with me.
So a strait dude gets a penis cake as a gag. Gay guy sees cake and thinks it impressive and wants one. Goes to same baker. Baker doesn't want to and refuses service due to gayness....That is discrimination. For people arguing for hobos, they can be rejected for health and sanitation. If a gay couple is acting disruptive (drunk or something), they can be kicked out, but not because they are gay, rather because they are disruptive.
"Religion" can be exploited, and will be.
Yes, most Christian religions believe that. But as it pertains the to US, a nation formed with no bias of religion, should have no effect on our laws. Separation of church and state my friends. So while my church may not allow gays to be married there, they are free to have civil unions in the eyes of the United States.
So we should still have slavery and not allow women to vote? Because that is what the original Constitution called for.
At the end of the day, you are still free to practice your religion. That has not been affected one bit. If you hate gays and can't stand to be around them in public, go to church. Because thats exactly what Christian principles are...hate gays for being gay.
Oh, whats that?, "love thy neighbor". Thats the Christian values that I remember.
quote:
If a business wants to decline an opportunity to make revenue, then they should have that right. Forcing businesses to take on new business is not exactly democratic in nature. If a buttpirate can't get a cake made at one place, just go to another fricking bakery, for crying out loud
So a strait dude gets a penis cake as a gag. Gay guy sees cake and thinks it impressive and wants one. Goes to same baker. Baker doesn't want to and refuses service due to gayness....That is discrimination. For people arguing for hobos, they can be rejected for health and sanitation. If a gay couple is acting disruptive (drunk or something), they can be kicked out, but not because they are gay, rather because they are disruptive.
"Religion" can be exploited, and will be.
quote:
The concept of marriage in multiple Christian religions clearly define it as a man and a woman, not through same-sex individuals. It's not like these people made it up to discriminate purposely. It's a valid belief of choice but slowly liberally run states treat the constitution like toilet paper, pretending certain amendments are morally wrong, outdated, or invalid to everyday life. Glad to see Indiana taking a stand for this.
Yes, most Christian religions believe that. But as it pertains the to US, a nation formed with no bias of religion, should have no effect on our laws. Separation of church and state my friends. So while my church may not allow gays to be married there, they are free to have civil unions in the eyes of the United States.
quote:
It's a valid belief of choice but slowly liberally run states treat the constitution like toilet paper, pretending certain amendments are morally wrong, outdated, or invalid to everyday life
So we should still have slavery and not allow women to vote? Because that is what the original Constitution called for.
At the end of the day, you are still free to practice your religion. That has not been affected one bit. If you hate gays and can't stand to be around them in public, go to church. Because thats exactly what Christian principles are...hate gays for being gay.
Oh, whats that?, "love thy neighbor". Thats the Christian values that I remember.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 9:06 am to RoyalAir
quote:
It's tough for me to say for certain if homosexuality is nature/nurture
Understandable, because it is very likely both. Also, the preference is more of a spectrum than one or the other.
Women with other women is more socially acceptable, so you see more women exploring rug munching. There are some women who definitely have the preference for women, my aunt being one of them. For men, there's still more of a stigma attached to being gay. It rails against our cultural view of masculinity.
Everything considered, it doesn't really matter. If a dude wants to marry another dude, so what? This has no impact on your life or marriage unless you allow it to. I see many conservatives shouting from the hilltops about "freedom". You know, until an issue like gay marriage comes around to make them feel icky. The price of freedom is sometimes you're not going to like what others do with it.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 9:13 am to Duke
quote:
Everything considered, it doesn't really matter. If a dude wants to marry another dude, so what? This has no impact on your life or marriage unless you allow it to. I see many conservatives shouting from the hilltops about "freedom". You know, until an issue like gay marriage comes around to make them feel icky. The price of freedom is sometimes you're not going to like what others do with it.
I agree with all of this. That's why I've come to support a state definition allowing for homosexual "marriage." But in the vein of that freedom, I want churches and religious organizations who hold a different definition of marriage to be able to choose not to perform a homosexual ceremony. To me, this is the next great Supreme Court case. Does a church and/or pastor have the right to deny a homosexual couple a wedding?
I morally disagree with homosexual behavior, but I don't want the state to interfere with it. As you mentioned, freedom means being OK when someone does something you wouldn't.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 9:19 am to RoyalAir
quote:
I want churches and religious organizations who hold a different definition of marriage to be able to choose not to perform a homosexual ceremony. To me, this is the next great Supreme Court case. Does a church and/or pastor have the right to deny a homosexual couple a wedding?
Nah, I would be shocked if such a case ever reaches the SCOTUS. I think the establishment clause is pretty clear churches have the right to not perform a homosexual marriage. Forcing them would very much prohibit the free exercise of their religion.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 9:23 am to Duke
As it pertains to sports, the NCAA has officially released a statement that they oppose the law.
If this law is below the integrity of the NCAA...
If this law is below the integrity of the NCAA...
Posted on 3/27/15 at 9:25 am to 5thTiger
quote:
If this law is below the integrity of the NCAA...
It's still well above the integrity of FIFA.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 9:33 am to Duke
quote:
It's still well above the integrity of FIFA
Don't even get me started on FIFA....Sepp Blatter
Posted on 3/27/15 at 9:37 am to 5thTiger
quote:
Sepp Blatter
His shameless corruption is impressive. The Qatar World Cup is absolutely disgusting. Let's put the world's biggest sporting event in a place where 120 in the summer isn't uncommon. Now, let's make it in winter because playing in that heat is dangerous. We know because the thousands of slaves building the stadiums are dying in the heat.
Who cares though? Got paid son!
Now back to our regularly scheduled gay marriage discussion.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 9:52 am to RoyalAir
Not true IMO, but I doubt it's something we could argue fruitfully about, so we'll agree to disagree.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 10:24 am to AUbagman
quote:
Not true IMO, but I doubt it's something we could argue fruitfully about, so we'll agree to disagree.
I'm not a doctor, nor do I pretend to be. But AFAIK the Oath isn't legally binding, so other than a personal moral code, I don't see what teeth it realistically has.
If I'm missing something, please let me know.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 10:50 am to Duke
quote:
*Barring the obvious ridiculous examples like incest that someone is going to come back with.
Why not.. nobody else did...
If discriminating against same sex couples is a violation of their Constitutional Rights, how is it not a violation prohibiting brother/brother and sister/sister relations and marriages? And while health issues come into play with opposite sex incest.. is it not their body? Akin to the argument of a woman and her body and a fetus?
Posted on 3/27/15 at 11:19 am to Alahunter
I'm shocked an Alabama fan is taking the incest route. Shocked I tell you!
Gay incest marriages probably fall under the "no harm to others" umbrella as revolting of an idea as it is.
You're stretching here. The effects of incest babies are known. Having one is knowingly doing harm to a person's life. Abortion is still wrapped up in "when does life begin?"
Just had to prod me on the extremes of my logic...
Gay incest marriages probably fall under the "no harm to others" umbrella as revolting of an idea as it is.
quote:
And while health issues come into play with opposite sex incest.. is it not their body? Akin to the argument of a woman and her body and a fetus?
You're stretching here. The effects of incest babies are known. Having one is knowingly doing harm to a person's life. Abortion is still wrapped up in "when does life begin?"
Just had to prod me on the extremes of my logic...
Posted on 3/27/15 at 11:19 am to RoyalAir
quote:
I want churches and religious organizations who hold a different definition of marriage to be able to choose not to perform a homosexual ceremony. To me, this is the next great Supreme Court case. Does a church and/or pastor have the right to deny a homosexual couple a wedding?
Churches can refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for anyone, with impunity. If, however, a licensed wedding business is being operated out of churches, it is subject to taxation and civil rights laws as is any other enterprise. "Donations" rather than payments are usually used to get around the legalese. I can't see that changing after the Supremes rule on gay marriage in June.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 11:26 am to Duke
quote:
The effects of incest babies are known
But not always are there complications, usually its from generations of inbreeding.
quote:
Having one is knowingly doing harm to a person's life
Just as smoking and drinking when pregnant does. And as far as when life begins.. abortion is allowed well after the time period that a child has survived outside of the womb, thanks to technological advances in life sustaining technology. Yet the argument remains.. it's my body.. So, there is in fact, a double standard and a side of things not addressed in it's Constitutionality, probably based on prejudice and moral reasons.. wouldn't you say?
Posted on 3/27/15 at 11:31 am to Alahunter
quote:
If discriminating against same sex couples is a violation of their Constitutional Rights, how is it not a violation prohibiting brother/brother and sister/sister relations and marriages?
Where is the reasoning that incest is not harmful to society? Where is the scientific acceptance that "they're born that way" gives them Constitutional support? It doesn't exist.
quote:
And while health issues come into play with opposite sex incest.. is it not their body?
Incest is accepted as harmful to society, especially by heterosexuals who can produce children with major defects. To have offspring that might need a "village" to care for them is counter-productive.
quote:
Akin to the argument of a woman and her body and a fetus?
No way.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 11:53 am to Alahunter
quote:
o, there is in fact, a double standard and a side of things not addressed in it's Constitutionality, probably based on prejudice and moral reasons.. wouldn't you say?
All law is based on some sense of morality. The equation you're trying to make doesn't connect to this disucssion though. The question is does a doubt standard about gays violate their rights for any reason other than some subjective morality?
Incest is a decent connection because it really ups the uncomfortable for everyone, but the consequences of reproduction is a good reason to not allow it. Even if the effects don't happen every time.
Abortion is its own arena. There is a very legitimate discussion over what defines life and is a person's rights violated by the act. What possible negative effects to someone else's life, liberty, happiness exist if gays are allowed to get married? The other two cases have clear concerns to the health and well being of others.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 11:59 am to Kentucker
I'm not baking you a penis cake.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:02 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
I'm not baking you a penis cake.
Racist.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:31 pm to Duke
Here's the problem with thinking behind this type of law.
Every time I do business with a person, buy a drink, buy a TV, rent real estate, etc....I am not "endorsing their lifestyle". Because I do business with a Hindu, I am not "endorsing Hinduism". Because I sell rainbow cupcakes to a gay person, I am not "endorsing their gay lifestyle". Business is business. You keep your beliefs separate from business.
The connection the religious right is making between business activities and belief systems is so fricking shady. They really just hate gays.
Every time I do business with a person, buy a drink, buy a TV, rent real estate, etc....I am not "endorsing their lifestyle". Because I do business with a Hindu, I am not "endorsing Hinduism". Because I sell rainbow cupcakes to a gay person, I am not "endorsing their gay lifestyle". Business is business. You keep your beliefs separate from business.
The connection the religious right is making between business activities and belief systems is so fricking shady. They really just hate gays.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News