Justices rule on SSM (Page 5)

Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly

Originally posted by dontracy

Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly My turn for last comments. The LGBT agenda is equivalent to the woman's suffrage movement is equivalent to the anti-segregation movement. Equal rights under the law for all citizens. Regardless of mob rule, religious views, or personal beliefs. C-ya.

It just occurred to me that Brian gives another example of the phenomenon I wrote about earlier.

He's saying in a sense (correct me if I'm wrong Brian, if you're still here) that the LGBT agenda is a moral crusade similar for example to the anti-segregationist movement, and further that there is a moral code that says that there ought to be equal rights under the law.

That's fine.  The notion of equal rights under the law of course comes out of the Judeo/Christian Western culture. It's rooted in a religiously informed notion of the nature of the human person. It was rightly applied to segregation laws.  Our understanding of the dignity of the human person is a religiously informed one, even if we ourselves might not be religious.

The he says essentially to not bring ones religiously informed opinions to the table regarding the LGBT agenda. (forgive me Brian if I put words in your mouth)

So which is it? Can't have it both ways.  

If you want to appeal to the religiously informed opinion of the human person regarding equal protection under the law, then you have to allow for it as well regarding the definition of marriage and other issues regarding human sexuality.  You might disagree with the religiously informed conclusion, that's fine. However, you have to allow it a place at the table and in the public square.

Yes, you did put words in my mouth. Don, I was not speaking about morality in any sense. I am strictly referring to legal rights. Whether or not I believe in the morality of same-sex marriage is not the argument I was attempting to make. I do believe that is the domain of our religious institutions, which are entitled under the law to choose whether or not they will perform a same-sex marriage. And that's how I believe it should stand. I want government to stay out of my bedroom AND out of my synagogue. If that makes me a religious secular humanist I can live with that

Hold the phone!!  Are we talking Jewish same sex marriages here??  Oh,  hell no!!   

I haven't thought through it enough to give you an answer. Up 'til now, the idea of civil unions has been used as a trojan horse to push through a redefinition of marriage. The progressive movement as usual hasn't been honest.

So before, yes. Now, I don't know.

In the case of your aunt and medical decisions, sure.

I was mostly directing the question to Switch because I'm curious.

The definition of Sin is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

I respectfully disagree.  Women did not have the right to vote and men did.  They did not have equal rights with men and they successfully fought to obtain those rights.

anti-segregation movement was where black citizens (and other minorities) didn't have the right to go to places based on their skin color.  Yet again, they did not have equal rights with white people and they successfully fought to obtain those rights.

Gay people have exactly the same civil rights I do in every level of the constitution.  I know the LGBT agenda has tried to raise SSM to the level of a right, but it is not.  Rights are individual by nature and I'll even quote the Huffington Post:
Rephrasing gay marriage as a civil rights issue is a brilliant public relations move. Yet, it commits a logical error by categorizing marriage as an individual right, something that it never was previously.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/is-gay-marriage-a-civil-r_b_3202695.html

Now when it comes to marriage or civil unions which is merely a recognition by the government that two people (currently man and women in most states) have entered into a legal agreement that entitles them to certain benefits.  Yet again, gay people have the exact same entitlements, in that they have the ability to marry somebody of the opposite sex just like I do.  I don't have the ability to marry the same sex either, so the argument for equal "rights" isn't correct.

What the gay community is really asking for is special rights, in that they want to marry people of the same sex, which nobody (straight or gay) up to this point was allowed to do.

I'm not specifically directing this at you Brian, but I get a little annoyed by the "equal rights" argument because I feel it's demeaning to the people who truly suffered through the oppression of their individual rights in our history.

I respectfully disagree.  Women did not have the right to vote and men did.  They did not have equal rights with men and they successfully fought to obtain those rights.

anti-segregation movement was where black citizens (and other minorities) didn't have the right to go to places based on their skin color.  Yet again, they did not have equal rights with white people and they successfully fought to obtain those rights.

Gay people have exactly the same civil rights I do in every level of the constitution.  I know the LGBT agenda has tried to raise SSM to the level of a right, but it is not.  Rights are individual by nature and I'll even quote the Huffington Post:
Rephrasing gay marriage as a civil rights issue is a brilliant public relations move. Yet, it commits a logical error by categorizing marriage as an individual right, something that it never was previously.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/is-gay-marriage-a-civil-r_b_3202695.html

Now when it comes to marriage or civil unions which is merely a recognition by the government that two people (currently man and women in most states) have entered into a legal agreement that entitles them to certain benefits.  Yet again, gay people have the exact same entitlements, in that they have the ability to marry somebody of the opposite sex just like I do.  I don't have the ability to marry the same sex either, so the argument for equal "rights" isn't correct.

What the gay community is really asking for is special rights, in that they want to marry people of the same sex, which nobody (straight or gay) up to this point was allowed to do.

I'm not specifically directing this at you Brian, but I get a little annoyed by the "equal rights" argument because I feel it's demeaning to the people who truly suffered through the oppression of their individual rights in our history.

As you pointed out, the SCOTUS decisions did not find a right in the Constitution for so called gay marriage.

The LGBT agenda is about changing the definition of marriage. No one is being discriminated against by the traditional/authentic understanding of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

So I don't think your analogy to voter law holds.

This issue is about two understandings of marriage: the traditional/authentic view that understands the conjugal nature of marriage vs. the LGBT revisionist view that it can be between any two persons regardless of gender.

This fight will never go away. I hope the proponents of the LGBT agenda understand that. We on our side understand it.  This issue isn't analogous to miscegenation laws as proponents try to propose. Completely different issue.  We're on the correct side of the issue of the understanding of the nature of what marriage is.

In the short run we'll probably lose more ground, but in the long run we'll win. Without a doubt.

And to clarify, your first sentence is, well, wrong.  SCOTUS neither found nor did not find a right to gay marriage.  It wasn't looking.  That's sort of a straw man you set up there in support of your argument.

Also ETA - "we on the correct side" is such a distasteful way of phrasing it.  People can have differing opinions.  I like you, but you do have a way of lording your relationship with "God" and the absolute truth of what you believe over these types of issues(which is kind of ironic, given your history of your beliefs and how they've changed).  Might I suggest a different turn of phrase, such as "I believe that....."   That leaves room for discussion.  The absolutism does not.  But maybe there isn't room anyway.  I guess that's what you mean by you "winning", such that others must "lose."  That's not a very Christian way of viewing things in my book, but hey, I'm not a Christian, so what do I know

Yet we don't live in a theocracy, we live in a democratic Republic. It is a form of government so we can all get along in a country. When we decide to do that, then there are going to be some things not everyone agrees on... so we default to individual freedom under the law. That is the Constitution we have. That individual rights trump mob rule. Shacking up with my girlfriend is not against the law. I can look at all the porn I want. And however I choose to live and how much sin I like, has nothing to do with your freedom to live your life however you see fit based on your beliefs... unless somehow I infringe on your rights. And me freely engaging in sin does not infringe on your freedom to practice your religion.

In the short run we'll probably lose more ground, but in the long run we'll win. Without a doubt.

The infringement on the exercise of another's freedom depends on the sin that you're engaging in.  

I thought all sin was equal. Me treating my body as an amusement park does not determine your freedom of chosen worship.

We certainly can bring religiously formed opinions to the public square without it falling over into theocracy.

Everyone is certainly free to bring their opinion to the square. And they should not be shouted down just because their views are traditional and conservative and go by a set belief system.

The problem comes when one thinks he owns the square. Or that they at least own the high ground in the center above all others. In a democratic republic, that is simply not the case, and it never has been.

No, all sin is not equal.

We don't think we own the square. We are however constantly told that we have no place in the square, at least when we disagree with the dominant culture.

Look at the post just a few up from here. It starts with a beautiful illustration of the wonders of the universe (an understanding by the way that Church institutions have contributed to over the centuries despite popular misunderstands about Galileo) and then ends with a mocking of Church teaching on human sexuality.

That kind of nonsense goes on all the time.  It's designed to keep people quiet. No one wants to be mocked.  It's a form a bigotry and contributes to mob rule. Yet bigotry against the Church and against Christians is tolerated all the time in our current culture.

No, all sin is not equal.

We don't think we own the square. We are however constantly told that we have no place in the square, at least when we disagree with the dominant culture.

Look at the post just a few up from here. It starts with a beautiful illustration of the wonders of the universe (an understanding by the way that Church institutions have contributed to over the centuries despite popular misunderstands about Galileo) and then ends with a mocking of Church teaching on human sexuality.

That kind of nonsense goes on all the time.  It's designed to keep people quiet. No one wants to be mocked.  It's a form a bigotry and contributes to mob rule. Yet bigotry against the Church and against Christians is tolerated all the time in our current culture.

How do you know that?

Why do you believe that?

No, all sin is not equal.

We don't think we own the square. We are however constantly told that we have no place in the square, at least when we disagree with the dominant culture.

Look at the post just a few up from here. It starts with a beautiful illustration of the wonders of the universe (an understanding by the way that Church institutions have contributed to over the centuries despite popular misunderstands about Galileo) and then ends with a mocking of Church teaching on human sexuality.

That kind of nonsense goes on all the time.  It's designed to keep people quiet. No one wants to be mocked.  It's a form a bigotry and contributes to mob rule. Yet bigotry against the Church and against Christians is tolerated all the time in our current culture.