Federal judge strikes down Utah’s gay marriage ban

I can only imagine IvyLeague's reaction.

(Seriously what's up with Utah? Using a gay marriage ruling to try to legalize polygamy in a recent ruling I'm sure the gays will let that state have that as long as SSM gets struck down. Deal?)

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57291925-78/marriage-utah-case-judge.html.csp

so gays can't get married but polygamist can buy peoples childred off the street

i know somebody that sold her kid to some weirdos in utah

there's some ackward shit transpiring in the pacific northwest

dawg, utah ain't be located in da pacifik norfwess, ya feel me?

Judge Completely Trolls Justice Scalia In Striking Down Utah's Gay Marriage Ban

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-completely-trolls-justice-scalia-231955159.html

My blood is still boiling from this. Even the biggest supporter of gay marriage, if they're honest, have to admit that there's something wrong with the system when one arrogant, designing judge can overrule the will of the people in an entire state and it's constitution. But this is exactly what the liberal, secular, Godless Left does. They usually cannot win in the "court of public opinion" so they force their agenda down everyone's throats through corrupt lawyers and judges.

As I've pointed out before, and which nobody can argue against, is the utter hypocrisy here. Years ago, this nation already decided what it considered marriage when it ruled against polygamy...despite polygamy (or plural marriage) being part of a people's religion and it actually being protected by the Constitution. But now, we're suddenly supposed to turn everything on it's head in favor of gays having the "right" to marry, despite there being nothing to support that? Many on the Left will pay lip service to agreeing for polygamy now but I think it's only because they don't want to appear inconsistent. They couldn't care less about equal protection, the Constitution, etc. It's about getting their agenda through.

This issue should be like what abortion should have been - left up to the states on a state level. Hopefully the state succeeds in getting this ridiculous ruling held off.


And now behold, I say unto you, the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges. - Alma 10:27

I live in Massachusetts...as liberal of a state as there is thanks to those fucking asshole Kennedy's. I have voted for both dems and republicans. If the homosexuals want to get married...all the power to them. They don't bother me and everybody has a right to be happy IMO.

First off, isn't it funny how people hate "judicial activists" until they rule in their favor?

Second, we get it dude. Not the first time that you more or less infer that polygamy getting pressed out of your denomination by the Feds was a big no no and now you have (to quote those chumps at Slate) "Agenda Envy." Someday perhaps polygamy will become legal again. But I don't know why that should be used against patriotic American tax-paying citizens who aren't hurting anybody.



"Chill out." - Jesus

I don't want any stinking judge legislating from the bench.

Polygamy is a larger step than gay marriage and won't have the support of many people who currently support gay marriage. Nevertheless it will slowly gain acceptance. Right now it's just getting through decriminalization stage. It's up to its adherents to fight for it.

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/12/22/a-v...morality-codes/

I personally see nothing wrong with polygamy, it's a little weird but if everyone involved is fine with it i don't see a problem. It makes no sense that cheating on your wife or husband is legal but having more than one is illegal even though all parties know.

You know, this Board has entertained the ripe postings of several characters over the decade or so that I've been a member of it, some of whom have been banned. However, the vitriol represented by some of your postings is unique.

Your written animations obscure any potential logic or reason inherent in your posts.

I'm not sure what you're babbling about. I've made my points very clear and they can't be argued with. Judges trying to use the 14th amendment to OK gay marriage is just as absurd as them using the 4th amendment to OK abortion. But liberal activist judges have to twist and distort what the law says in order to get their agendas through. It's why the Constitution is well on it's way to "hanging like a thread."

Utah Gay Couples' Rush To Marry Halts After SCOTUS Decision

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/utah-gay-couples-marry-_n_4554572.html

If they reverse the decision, what happens to the 1000 "marriages" that already took place?

A U.S. district judge in Austin will hold the first-ever hearing Thursday, Jan. 9 on federal lawsuits filed by same-sex couples challenging Texas’ marriage bans as unconstitutional. The three Texas lawsuits are part of a wave that have been filed across the country in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last June.

Judge Sam Sparks, of the Western District of Texas, will hold a status conference Thursday to consider pending motions in the lawsuits. Chief among those motions is a request from Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, who’s defending the state’s marriage bans, to consolidate the three lawsuits into one. Plaintiffs in the cases oppose Abbott’s consolidation request, but an attorney for one acknowledged it’s likely to be granted.

That question shows the very arrogance of the judge who struck down that part of Utah's law. He knew damn well that this kind of legal problem would arise so he should have at least granted the stay until higher courts could rule. But oh no, he wanted to send a message regardless of the future problems it would cause.

Personally I found it funny that gay marriage would become allowed, even if only for a few weeks, in UTAH of all places when most of America has legalized gay marriage to some degree, that state will still be one of the last standing

Looks like that question was answered today with the feds announcing that they would recognize the 1000 marriages that have already taken place even if the state doesnt.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/...nefits-in-utah/

Most of America? Last time I checked, more states still ban gay marriage than have legalized it.

And there's nothing funny about one arrogant, activist judge being able to overrule the will of the majority population in a state.

Ivy I meant like way in the future not now. Although close to 40 percent of the states have legalized it.

I found humor because Utah is the last state on this earth that would vote for gay marriage yet it happened because our legal system has become quite tricky on this issue.

I know this is a serious issue for ya but cut me some slack eh Arch?

Add Michigan to the list:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/justice/michigan-gay-marriage/index.html

Notice how, with few exceptions, this continues to happen only because of these federal judges who overrule the will of the majority of the citizens in a state. Hopefully this will all eventually get to the Supreme Court and that they will make the right decision to leave it up to each state. But I'm not holding my breath.

Didn't know where else to post this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/extr...p-leader-n67961

It's disappointing but whatever. They made a huge step forward in allowing kids who are gay to join.

Imo boy scouts is fucking stupid anyway, we (meaning my buddies) always saw it as the goodie two shoes group growing up. One scout leader I knew of was the biggest doofus he was this wicked fat dude with a 70s porn star mustache who thought he was the coolest dude ever. You couldn't find a more uptight son of a bitch. Something straight out of the 1950s I swear.

I really don't see the point in gay marriage? If one was gay why do they want to be RECOGNIZED do they deserve some sort of special attention? I saw two dudes kiss on the airplane and it just irritated and grossed me out. In general public displays like that are useless in my opinion as far as Utah there are some real weirdo's that come out of that state. I knew a white chick that moved from Utah to vegas, got a black pimp, drove him up the wazoo with her crazy BS then got sent to the looney bin after shaving her head. when she got out she married some really really ugly old guy it was a disgrace. freakin weird people with weird ideas. so gross

Question 1: What is the point?

Marriage confers a host of legal and practical rights, benefits and protections to an individual, who commits to another.

There are tax benefits, which allow the married to file jointly and claim deductions they couldn't if they were single. Marriage also allows the division of business income in a family partnership under tax laws.

Marriage allows one to inherit their spouse's entire estate without it being touched by federal and state tax laws. If not married, taxes and administrative costs can consume the majority of an estate. Marriage also allows the trensfer of property between spouses, and the creation of life estate trusts, like marital deduction trusts, limited to married peiple.

There are government benefits from a marital status too, involving Social Security, Medicare,veterans benefits for medical care, education and special loans, and publisc assistance.

The benefits from marriage extend to the workplace and include things like medical insurance, family leave, workers' comp, retirement plans, beravement leave.

Marriage also allows a spouse to make medical decisions, and allows for joint or step adoptions, eqof property through divorce and child support. There are benefits from insurance rateds and tuition discounts and other marketplace discounts.

Marriage offers legal protections with privileges and distinct causes of action the marital relationship.

I could go on, but the "point" should be clear.

Like many others, who oppose marriage equality, you miss the core of the issue as your question suggests. It's clearly not about wanting "special attention;" it's about receiving the same consideration that everyone else receives. Marriage is a civil contract that produces many benefits, some of which are mentioned in my previous post. There is not a compelling argument why any of those rights, benefits or privileges should be denied to a citizen, solely on the basis of sexual orientation. The only argument you put forth is that you find it icky, and that's just not enough, princess.

Thanks Kly. As usual, both of your posts immediately above are quite an enlightenment.

By the way the Pirates are undefeated while the Phillies are 1-1.

I was aware of all the laws and benefits of being married... it's not that I find it "icky" I find it repulsive and I'm sure there are plenty of pretend homosexuals and greedy f*cks that will find a way to use these "rights" to their benefit. Whatever not a big deal... the economy always finds a way to balance itself out.

So I guess have it homo's... enjoy yourselves...

I'm not going to pretend I would want to see a gay dude take it up the ass but what people do behind closed doors is none my business. As far as I'm concerned you can't deny marriage to someone based on sexual orientation.

I stayed up last night to watch the Buccos win in the 16th while the Phillies blew a 3-1 lead in the ninth. The balance of power is entrenched in the western part of the commonwealth.

.

<adjusting post to reinstate the thread's title>

i became a katy perry fan when i saw her and rihanna feeling on each other at the mtv awards

i would find it hilarious if a man asked his ex husband for alimony or spousal support

Another one bites the dust:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-end-ohio-ban-recognizing-gay-marriage-n72101

This is all happening very quickly, and my guess is the next time around the Supremes are going to give enforcement in all fifty states to gay marriage to those who moved from those places or who were married there, and who live in backwaters like Florida.

I think the Court will extend recognition of gay marriage but only per Article IV's full faith and credit clause. Total recognition of gay marriage will be a function of the 14th amendment's interpretation and will come down to Justice Kennedy.

Agreed Oli. It ill be full faith and credit. Seems like the 14th is going out of style.

Just to be sure what I meant was I think the Court will opine that states have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. However, I don't think they'll strike down all gay marriage laws and constitution content in all states.

But, but I heard that if gay marriage becomes legal I will have to pretend to be gay to get benefits...

Test (to bring down thread title)

Add my home Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the list of states that now recognize same-sex marriages. A federal judge from the Middle District struck down PA's ban of same-sex marriage. It doesn't appear that the governor will appeal as it is an election year (primaries today).

The decision was written by Judge John E. Jones, whose most famous decision was the order rejecting the Dover, PA school district's attempt to insert creationism/intelligent design in the science curriculum alongside the teaching of evolution.

And on cue, here comes Ivy to take activist judges and give them what for . . . . . . . .

I've said pretty much all I can say.

I just don't want anyone trying to deny these are activist judges who are overstepping their bounds. There's something wrong when a single power-hungry judge can twist the law to fit his or her warped interpretation and overrule the will of the majority of the people in a state.

Even though I think gay marriage is an abomination, and anyone who supports it is morally bankrupt, I'm content to let those states where the people want it to have it. The same should be allowed for those states that don't. But liberals have never wanted this because, as we've seen here, few states would allow it. So they force their sick, Godless agendas through the courts via corrupt lawyers and judges.

And the thought that it all could come down to one guy on the Supreme Court (Kennedy) is really scary. But I guess we can thank President Obama...Mr. Self-Professed Christian...oh wait...and supporter of traditional marriage...oh wait...for his Supreme Court appointments.

who should take the blame for all the children being held captive in polygamy or cults?

i mean who should we blame in utah for that debauchery

Yeah, that's it. When all else fails attack a man's religion .

When twelve separate federal courts and seven state courts come to the same conclusion that prohibitions against marriage, based on sexual orientation, are unconstitutional, it's time to stop whining about activist and rogue judges, especially when there has not been a decision upholding the ban.

It is long established that the right to marry is embedded in the right to liberty under the XIV Amendment. Interpreting laws that affect fundamental rights of citizens, especially suspect classifications is the role of the judiciary, and not the legislature. This is made clear in Article III.

Moreover, where the legislature operates on majoritarian principles, the judiciary has been specifically designed not to operate in this fashion because constitutional rights are not subject to the whims of popular opinion.

Constitutional challenges to marriage laws are properly decided in courts of law. In each of these cases the courts properly framed the issue of whether the prohibition of marriage, based on sexual orientation is substantially related to a compelling or important government interest. And in each case the state could not present such an argument.

By the way, Judge Jones was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush. He's also a devout Lutheran.

The issue (not the PA case as Governor Ridge indicated that the commonwealth will not appeal the decision) will eventually come before the Supreme Court probably in a few years. There will be several consolidated cases. Perhaps the composition of the Court will be different, but you can probably bet that the opinion will be assigned to Kennedy. Don't be surprised if Roberts rules that same-sex marriage bans violate the due process and equal protection clauses and it's a 6-3 vote. He can see the precedent of cases in the past 10-15 years and has a unique sense of his historical standing as Chief Justice, and he wouldn't want to be caught on the wrong side of history. It will be hard for him not to apply heightened scrutiny in his review.

Who cares whether gay people get married or not. Not my business let them get married. Then when they divorce lawyers can do a job on them like they do with straight people.

What I don't like is teaching 6 yr olds about aids and HIV during aids awareness week. Like they did in the public school system last week. Without asking permission from their parents first. They did not ask because they knew a parent would say no to that request. They are a bunch of scumbags

We need Tom Wolf!

It will be quite a run-off in November. Corbett's approval ratings hit rock bottom this past winter, and Wolf, who's from my area, rose from obscurity in a lackluster field of Democrats to run away with the nomination.

Corbett may not recover politically from having dramatically slashed the education budget, but he showed an ability to get things done and build bipartisan bridges with the transportation bill.

Incumbent governors never lose in PA. Corbett may be the first.

(By the way, in my earlier post I referred to the governor as Ridge. What the hell was I thinking? He was three governors ago.

You can't argue several judges coming to the same conclusion as evidence they got it right. Gays having the "right" to marry is no more embedded in the XIV Amendment than woman having the "right" to have an abortion is found in IV amendment. The Constitution says what it says and anything else should be left up to the states. But that's where activist lawyers and judges, and their liberal supporters, twist and pervert the Constitution to say anything they want it to say. The laws are eventually no longer based on what the Founders actually intended but on case precedent based on the bone headed ruling of one judge or another. When you have a group of supreme court judges all looking at the same case, and going by the same laws, and yet coming out with different rulings, that shows you some are actually going by what the law says and others have some other agenda. And what the hell does that mean, the "wrong side of history?" Even if the majority of people eventually came to believe gay marriage was OK, and it was the law of the land across the nation, it wouldn't automatically make it right.

First of all, you are quite wrong on your belief that the basis for Roe v. Wade was the IV Amendment. You have posted this multiple times, and you're misinformed. Roe rests on substantive due process of the XIV Amendment, which protects fundamental unenumerated rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Your application of Constitutional principles is appallingly narrowminded and contrary to what the framers intended. How do you account for the IX Amendment if the Constitution is an exhaustible list of rights? The Constitution is not statutory law, but constitutionalism requires applying the principles of the document (broadly spelled out, rather than narrowly crafted, like statutes) to laws passed by legislatures.

Because marriage, procreation, family decisions, etc. aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean that laws affecting these rights should not be held up to the constitutional mandates of due process and equal protection, guaranteed in the XIV.

Thanks for proving my point.

"Substantive due process of the XIV Amendment, which protects fundamental unenumerated rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

In other words, we'll just go ahead and assume this is what the Founders meant or stretch the original intention so far out of wack to justify anything we want.



Not "norrowminded," just going by what the Constitution actually says and not buying into this it being a "living, breathing" document BS that lawyers like yourself use as the basis for making new laws based on perversion of the Constitution.

You and I both know there is nothing the Founders put in the Constitution that would have ever justified support for gay marriage. Rather, you take a basic principle found there, bastardize it with a bunch of legalese mumbo jumbo, and misuse it to justify gay marriage.

Ivy, here is a news flash. the Founding Fathers did not believe in "original intent." The proof is that they provided for a process to amend the constitution (which only allowed white male property owners to vote, governors to appoint senators and slavery). As Michael Corleone said, "tempi cambi." The founders were in favor of amendments. Get over it.

That's an inference or spin, based on ignorance. If you were familiar with the standards and tests developed to determine when restrictive laws rise to the level of creating an undue burden on personal liberty, such that the law is unconstitutional, you wouldn't resort to the hysterical cry of the ill-informed: "They're just doing anything they want." And I guess you're still looking up the IX Amendment on Wikipedia.

It's funny how you hailed and cheered a year ago when the Court struck down part of the Civil Rights Act on what many considered an infringement on the legislative branch. Hypocrisy.

This

What the founders thought about constitutional rights concerning marriage is irrelevant. They were all dead before the XIV Amendment was passed. They were never aware of the Incorporation Clause, The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause and how they apply to laws that discriminate against a classification of citizens.

Moreover, those framers of the Constitution, who happened to be congressmen, stood mute in the formative years when Congress discussed and had to iron out apparent conflicting provisions in the Constitution. Madison especially followed this practice and even sealed his historic notes from the Constitution for thirty years, lest subsequent congresses relied too heavily on the framers' opinions and not on their own sensibilities concerning a working government under the Constitution.

The issue isn't about Amendments. It's about courts claiming those amendments say or imply something they don't.



You'll have to refresh my memory on that.

Ivy, please give examples and not talking points. Your idea of judicial review was nixed in Marbury v. Madison in the 1800's.

I thought the Salem Witch Trials were in the 1600's?

Slightly before the Constitution! But Scalia would have backed them.

Why are these crazies so obsessed with sex? Abortion and Gays...abortion and gays....aborttion and gays.... WHO CARES?
I'll tell you who should, women who are contemplating abortion, and gays who face discrimination.

I am neither, so frankly none of it is my damn business. The fact that I live in and am proud the concept of "the land of the free," my idea of restricting personal conduct will always be on the side of freedom.

Good advice DT. It might assist some Board members' understanding of the Constitution's interpretation if they would read any number of tomes about that subject. Some Board members almost rapaciously adhere to a "strict construction" constitutional position which is a dead end. There is nothing in the Constitution or its formulation that supports strict construction. The Founding Fathers included "equity" in the Constitution's Article III in order to provide the Supreme Court and inferior courts with interpretive latitude.

By the way, Amendments IX and X add nothing to the Constitution unless one ignores the Article I, Section 8 bookends: general welfare and Necessary and Proper.

Those darn Texans:


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-gop-takes-aim-bans-reparative-therapy-gay-minors-n124506

Who cares? People with morals. People with a sense of right and wrong. In other words, not you.

Typical liberal. A woman goes to an abortionist to have the child within her killed, but if I find that objectionable, I'm the crazy one. Or two gay men can have disgusting, unnatural, sexual relations, but if I find that objectionable, I'm the crazy one.

You are so steeped in your liberal dogma BS, you have lost all common sense or decency.



Nonsense. It's that kind of thinking that has led liberal activist judges to "interpret" so far away from what the Constitution actually says that it may as well not even exist. No longer is the Constitution the guide but case precedent in what some boneheaded judge ruled. Whatever "latitude" was originally provided in the Constitution has been woefully abused by designing and corrupt politicians, judges and lawyers (many who become politicians) who only care about spinning the law to suit their own agendas.

The beat goes on:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/us/wisconsin-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

I can't understand why we should give a shit about what gay people do or don't do.

Except for some reason some gay people like to flaunt what they do in straight peoples faces.

Utah wins delay in recognizing same-sex marriages
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
updated 5:46 PM EDT, Fri July 18, 2014

(CNN) -- Utah officials for the time being do not have to formally recognize hundreds of same-sex marriages performed earlier this year, after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted the state's request for an injunction.

DENVER (AP) — A federal judge in Denver declared Colorado's gay marriage ban unconstitutional on Wednesday, but he issued a temporary stay of the ruling to give the state until next month to seek an appeal.

Judge Raymond P. Moore's ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed July 1 by six gay couples who asked the court for an injunction ordering that the state's ban no longer be enforced.

I did it again! Another gay marriage ban bites the dust. This time it's Fla:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/21/justice/florida-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I'm surprised it took so long down there, what with Key West and Fort Lauderdale .

Is this something to celebrate?...just asking.

I must be a liberal because I could not care less what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.

Also let's give the lawyers a chance to make money off their divorces.

I could also care less what two consenting adults do behind closed doors, I just don't want it rammed down my throat or that of children...they can have a civil union (same benefits of marriage)..but they don't want that...they want that term "marriage" in order to legitimize their lifestyle. Keep your preferences to yourself and no one will bother you , but shove it down people's throats and you're going to get pushback....no pun intended.

Years ago their was a men's soccer team that playes in the lowest division of the CSL here in NYC. They excuse the expression sucked

What is pissing me off is all these damned judges saing the will of the people don't fucking count. The people of these states voted for these bans so the will of the people should trump everything but nope.

Federal appeals judges bristled Tuesday at arguments defending gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin, with one Republican appointee comparing them to now-defunct laws that once outlawed weddings between blacks and whites.

As the legal skirmish over same-sex marriage shifted to the three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, more than 200 people lined up hoping to get a spot in the hearing room.

Attorneys general in both states are trying to reinstate bans that were ruled unconstitutional in June. The outcome of the case also could directly affect hundreds of couples who were married after federal judges overturned the bans but before their rulings were put on hold pending appeal.

http://news.msn.com/us/judges-blast-indiana-wisconsin-gay-marriage-bans

I'm just tired of the topic. The gays won the culture war. It's over. As a matter of law, anyway.

If you think it's wrong, teach your kids that it's wrong. If you think it's natural, then you do likewise with your kids. But for God's sake, get over it.

The opponents of gay marriage have to stop with the judgement. And the gays themselves have to stop shoving it in everyone's face. Learn to co-exist. It ain't all that hard.

Constitutional rights are not subject to a popularity contest although nation-wide the opponents of marriage equality come out on the losing side. All legislation is subject to constitutional scrutiny.

But as you and I both know, it's not our judgement that this is ultimately about. And what people did behind closed doors was never the issue. It's gays wanting official recognition for their relationships by the government, which often means those morally opposed to it are forced to recognize it as well. Contrary to the oft-used argument by gay marriage supporters of , "How does it affect you?," we've seen many examples of how it does. It's our government giving an official stamp of approval on relationships that are neither equal or the same as heterosexual relationships. It's our government saying that gender does not matter and that the sexes are interchangable. That it makes no difference whatsoever if a child is raised by a mother and father or by two men or two women. Perhaps most of all, it's the secular segment of society, who want a post-Biblical, Judeo-Christian country, using corrupt and designing lawyers and judges to overrule the will of the majority of the people who are not in favor of gay marriage.

And, as I've pointed out before, the only reason secular liberals who support gay marriage now have to also say they wouldn't be opposed to things such as polygamy is so they don't appear inconsistent. Guaranteed, if gay marriage was not an issue, those liberals (including the ones on this board) would come out with all sorts of arguments against legalizing polygamy; despite the freedom of religion grounds for it. But they know they can't do that now. So it really isn't about "equal protection under the law" for them. It never was. Like the judges and lawyers who have supported this, they simply twist the Constitution to suit their own agenda.

well said

One judge with some sense...


Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak
http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-upholds-la-same-sex-marriage-ban-165757659.html

The equivalent of Denver's second half td in last year's Super Bowl.

I haven't read the decision but the article suggests that the legislature has a right to define marriage. Nobody has argued against that in the previous court cases. What is also inarguable is that any statute or government action concerning a fundamental right must pass heightened scrutiny on equal protection and due process grounds.

The polygamy argument with respect to marriage equality holds no water for a couple of reasons, which have been stated before.

First, the civil institution of marriage recognizes hundreds of legal rights, responsibilities, benefits and obligations that would be frustrated and compromised by recognizing polygamous unions as legally valid. On several occasions I've posted examples of these and don't feel like answering the same question repeatedly. But the marital policy objectives of proprietary rights, joint tax returns, property rights on dissolution of marriage (equitable distribution), Social Security and Medicare (especially for the possibility of long term care, parenting and adoption rights, as well as insurance, pensions, duties of child support and debts of spouses are not achieved by polygamous relationships.

Secondly, there is a huge distinction between the would-be polygamist, who wants several spouses, and the homosexual, who wants one. The polygamist can enter into and receive all legal and financial benefits that legal marriage offers. There is no due process or equal protection argument of merit as he can fulfill the requirement of marriage. The gay person, unlike the polygamist, is barred from the benefits of marriage at the very beginning. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment arguments are available to him.

Also, your argument that the polygamist has a stronger argument for state/legal recognition of his plurality of marriages is ludicrous and underscores a fundamental ignorance of constitutional principles. The state is not required to recognize or validate unions performed by churches. According to the state the marriage is recognized by a civil license. It is not the obligation of the state or judiciary to conform public policy about marriage to include religious views on the topic. Religions are free to perform their wedding rituals, based on dogma, creed or mythology. If a church wants to let a guy marry ten brides, knock yourself out, but the first bride to get the license at the court house is the only one that the state should recognize as a legal wife.

You would have an argument except polygamy is outlawed. The government doesn't just say "We'll recognize one marriage and you can 'church marry' how many others you want." You make all sorts of excuses for why polygamy wouldn't be protected by the First Amendment under freedom of religion (including ignoring the history of how that all came about) but, at the same time, you argue that gay marriage is protected under equal protection. Anyone can see you're entirely driven by your own social and political liberal leanings. THAT'S the filter through which all your legalese mumbo jumbo goes through. You couldn't care less what the Constitution actually says or what those who wrote it actually intended. Sort of like the judges who have overruled state laws in favor of their warped personal views.



That's just it - a "fundamental right?" Gay people already had the same fundamental rights everybody else did, i.e. those recognized within what was always recognized as a marriage - man and woman. The whole issue is them changing things entirely and arguing that these "rights" apply to them in any form of relationship they want and that everybody is obligated to recognize it as such. And that's a load of hooey.

CHICAGO (AP) — A U.S. appeals court issued a scathing, unequivocal ruling Thursday declaring that gay marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana were unconstitutional, on the same day that 32 states asked the Supreme Court to settle the issue once and for all.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago was the fourth to hear arguments on the issue. The decision from a normally slow and deliberative court was released a little more than a week after oral arguments.

Marriage between two men is an oxymoronic statement...the very definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Why don't gays settle for "civil unions?"....the reason is purely political..they're really not interested in a civil union with the same rights of marriage, instead, they are interested in a political statement that "we are equal to heterosexuals." Again, its symbolism over substance..always the same from the left, whether its race, women's rights, or gays.

Well said. (Not that gay marriage supporters will ever recognize this, much less admit it.)

The key to the decision out of New Orleans is that homosexuals have never been classified as a suspect class therefore qualifying them for strict scrutiny. If a state has a compelling reason to impose a law limiting their ability to marry, the law must stand. This is not a due process argument where they are being denied a right. Some states see heterosexual unions as a compelling social necessity (procreation, mother and father raising a child etc.) But since homosexuals have never been classified as a suspect class they are not subject to strict scrutiny and equal protection arguments fail. The rush of many other courts to over rule the democratically established processes of many states belies any argument that homosexuals are the currently the victims of any institutionalized discrimination. At the end of the day the definition of marriage is constitutionally given to the sovereign powers of each state.

Of course, the same could be said about abortion. But that's never stopped the libs from forcing their agenda on everybody through the courts since they know they usually lose in the court of public opinion.

Keep in mind that the Courts have available to them a couple of other tests of constitutionality: heightened scrutiny and rational basis, the domain of which is not confined to 1st amendment issues.

Which means they can do whatever they want. The Constitution is either a living and breathing document or it isn't.

And I don't have a horse in this race. I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But if gays want to "marry" at City Hall, it doesn't bother me one bit. But if the day ever comes where the Government tries to force the Church's hand on the matter, then I'll have a BIG problem with it.

I think that one of the points that Ivy was trying to make is that we are now on a slippery slope. If man to man marriage is permissible, then next it will be man to child, or even man to animal....If you think that's impossible, well I thought gay marriage was impossible ten years ago. Watch for groups like NAMBLA (look it up), to pounce on this topic for their own purposes.....liberals have been waging war on society for the last 70 years..and their control of politics, academia, the media and law have done a damn good job...just ask ex-KGB agents who funded much of this onslaught throughout the 50s-70s.

Some guys just need a reminder.

Don't be surprised if/when it happens. The Catholic Church already had to get out of adoption because it wouldn't adopt out kids to homosexual couples.

Bingo!....no pun intended.

Scotus declines to review gay marriage decisions:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme...ases/ar-BB7PIb4

(CNN) -- A federal appeals court allowed four states to prohibit same-sex unions -- a decision that could force the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.

In a 2-1 ruling Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed lower court rulings in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky that struck down same-sex marriage bans.

Well, it should be left up to the individual states. The will if the people and all that.

I'd be for the legalizing of polygamy for the same reason I'm for same sex marriage. If you don't like those things, then you don't have to do them. If you're a man and want to marry another man? Knock yourself out. If you're a a man and can convince several different women to marry you? Personally, i think you're nuts, but whatever floats your boat. If you're a man who wants multiple gay marriages? Fuck it, who cares.

Which isn't to say I wouldn't think polygamists are weirdo's, but their weirdom has literally zero impact on my life.

And no offense, man, but "If man to man marriage is permissible, then next it will be man to child, or even man to animal." is just about the worst argument I've ever heard. Children and animals can't given consent, they don't make informed decisions; Same sex marriage is not some slippery slope to bestiality and child brides, claiming otherwise is just ridiculous.

Arkansas and Mississippi had their gay marriage bans declared unconstitutional by federal district judges.

I can't believe this shit is still in the news. The queers and lefties have won the cultural war on this issue. It's over. Time to move on.

What's that say about federal judges...they prefer "social justice" to the law....a disturbing trend in this country..but then again, the federal judgeships have been flooded by Clinton and Obama to promote their leftist ideals.

I don't disagree at all. But like I said, they won the culture war on this one. Conservatives should just let it go.

Now by all means, you should still teach your children what you believe is morally sound. Because no one can tell me that I can't tell my children that homosexuality isn't abnormal. That's my business and no one else's.

But as a matter of law, it's over. There are better ways to get even.

I would be interested in knowing what the suicide rate was for homosexuals in the 1950's as compared with it is today.

What would that prove...that they "feel" better about themselves today than in 1950? They're still gay...whether you believe that behavior to be aberrant or not, no one likes it shoved down their throat or that of their children. I think people are very tolerant to other people's behaviors as long as they don't impact on them personally. Keep it out of the schools and the constant barrage on television, and there would be much less furor.
The same held true for "gay marriage"...which by definition, is an oxymoron. They could have had civil unions..which they refused, though that entailed the same benefits of marriage...the reason being, that they must be "equal"..it just doesn't flush. And if you don't believe that we're on a slippery slope, you better look into NAMBLA and their efforts.

I bet the number is up today. Because they may have killed themselves more in the GOOD old days for being gay. But no one knew they were gay they kept it quit.

I wish they did that today. I don't mean kill them selves, but kept what they do in private.They should keep it private.

Do we care how many dicks they shove up thier ass or how many gerbils then put in their or how many coke bottle they shove up their NO we dont.

Did we go around sayING so everyone knows THAT WE LOVE PUSSY!!!!!!

Well if the dreaded Muslim hordes ever do take over the world. You probably wont be hearing about Gay rights or Gays any more.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Gay couples began getting married in Alabama on Monday morning, despite an 11th-hour attempt from the state's chief justice — an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage— to block the weddings.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday morning refused to block the marriages and let a hold on the federal ruling striking the ban expire. Minutes later, Alabama became the 37th state where gays and lesbians can legally wed as probate judges began granting the licenses to couples, some of whom had been lined up for hours and exited courthouses to applause.

DIXIE, Louisiana just beat BAMA in something!!!!

Aside from the tax breaks and insurance, the gay community will regret pushing this equality crap for years.

All it would have taken was a will through a lawyer that says: "I so and so leave everything to so and so if i die"

Then guess what?? you break up and change the will!!!!! OMG OMG OMG!!!! now they get to experience divorce because a lesbian got drunk and tried penis and loved it (That is a true story), or a gay man found another gay man with a bigger penis and wants to play with that one now. Welcome to the heterosexual problems boys and girls!! Just cost yourselves thousands of dollars more to be "equal"

the supreme court decision is wrong. the states have rights according to the tenth amendment of the U.S. constitution.

it should be left up to the states as with the marijuana laws,and if you don't like that law that bans gay marriage, then go to a state where its legal.

gay marriage goes against god, he did not make adam and adam, and eve and eve. why can't anybody understand common sense.
and as for old schools post about man to child, man to animal, well, my position would be, ok fellas, lock and load! let's go get the bastards. a law like that would cause a revolution.

“Common sense is not so common.”- Voltaire

Discriminating against one class of citizens is wrong. Common sense.

You are saying homosexuality goes against God is common sense? Well common sense tells me that the bible is not the word of "God." Why? Because common sense also tells me God does not exist.

Common sense does not exist.



I'm not intentionally attacking your beliefs(if you are happy with Christianity go for it, same if you were Islam, Hindu and Buddhist) but I don't understand how you can take part of what the bible says as literal and then other parts metaphorical. It is the all the word of "God" which is literal or it is not. If you believe the bible is the word of "God" I suggest you reread Deuteronomy.

I understand, we can agree to disagree, and I am a Christian with a Christian upbringing, and I don't believe in persecuting anyone with different ideas than mine. however, the gay community should not force their ideas on anyone, just keep to themselves. my opinion.

Even if we take religion completely out of it, there is something wrong when a single judge can overrule the will of the majority of people in an entire state. As Justice Thomas recently said, at the very least all the judges in these recent cases should have allowed the bans on gay marriage in those states to hold until it could be heard by the Supreme Court. But, as we've seen, they are activist judges who are only interested in their own personal agenda. It's how liberals, including the gay movement, has always gotten their way - through corrupt lawyers and judges.

Unfortunately, I don't hold out much hope for the Supreme Court leaving it up to the states (as it should). Kennedy will, in all probability, go with the 4 liberal judges in ruling for gay marriage and it will be a 5-4 decision. We can thank Obama for a large part of that, considering who he has appointed to the court.

Contrary to the opinion of liberals and their nonsense about a "living Constitution," the Constitution says what it says. Not what judges (even on the Supreme Court) say it says. More to the point, it says something when these 9 people, reading from the same document, can come away with such divergent viewpoints. It suggests that one side is going by what the Constitution actually says or does not say while the other is going by their own whims.

It doesn't take a legal scholar to see which side couldn't care less about what the Constitution says. To quote Ruth Bather Ginsburg in 2012:

"I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation: and yet we have the olden written constitution still in force in the world...I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa."

That tells you all you need to know about Ginsburg, the other liberals on the Supreme Court, the judges who have overruled the will of the people in state after state, and their supporters in the gay movement. They don't give a hill of beans about what the Constitution says and will twist, pervert, and misinterpret it in order to push forward their agenda.

But they'll never be content to just live and let live. They have to shove it in everyone's face. And I personally don't give a shit what people do in their bedroom. Let them cornhole each other all they want. But it should be left up to the state.

And I'm Catholic, too. But my position is to paraphrase the great David Puddy: They're the ones going to Hell, not me.

I agree with this. I used to be neutral on the issue (even though never liked homosexuality but, if somebody is born like that, it's not their fault). However, after being insulted and, what's more important, PUBLICLY SLANDERED by some "homosexuality defenders" and accused of bullshit I never heard about in my life on a non better specified forum, from that moment, with all respect to human general and individual rights, I can't sympathize with homosexuals and will never lift a finger to help them with their agenda. It's personal after that case. However, I think the crazy and really "evil" ones aren't homosexuals themselves, but their "enforcers" who aren't homosexuals but despite this (or maybe precisely because of this) are much more aggressive with their push-down-the-throat methods than any homosexual would ever dream of. Shitty hypocrites: if they think they have the right to be belligerent, what's the difference between them and skinheads who beat up homosexuals? The methods and attitude are basically the same, they are 2 faces of the same medal.
I must say that before meeting those shitbags who pretended to be "human right defenders" for homosexuality freedom, but lowered themselves to such methods as slander, I had a generally better opinion of people on internet as a whole. That was the first case I wasn't only insulted, but unable to prove to the whole forum they were lying about me. Scumbags. If that's the way they use to defend their ideals, then there must be something wrong with the ideal in question or at least with the way it's enforced.

That's why "liberal" shouldn't be used to describe them anymore. The word "liberal" connotes tolerance. They are left-wing extremists, far left-wingers, left-wing hatemongers or whatever you want to call them. They only tolerate what they agree with and are intolerant of everything else. In other words, they're not tolerant at all. To tolerate something means to put up with something, whether an idea or behavior, that you disagree with. They are really fascistic, wanting to force their beliefs on others and are willing to lynch those who who don't agree with them.

I am in total agreement with you, what is wrong with the democratic process, [the popular vote] where a federal judge can overrule the people. this is wrong. it goes against everything this nation stands for. democracy!!

as far as Ginsburg goes, she has no right being on the supreme court. her obvious disrespect of the constitution reveals her hidden agenda, to obstruct the will of the American people.

faithful, well thought out post, and the way its going, I find it very diffuclt to disagree with you,i don't care if someone is gay. but, I ask you not to rub your sexuality in my face. I find it sickning to have gay men kiss in public, with total disregard for children, or married couples, or the general public.

its gross, and rude, and they act like swine. and ones who defend such behavior are Indeed pushing their agenda by trying to recruit teens into their gay lifestyle, this is on their part is criminal. and such behavior should not be tolerated.

Binnie, thought you were going to finish that off with some extermination programme! What is wrong the gays getting married? Im not gay and I don't honestly give a shit what they do. If they get married and make a 'more real' commitment in their view, surely they will be more inclined to stay together, provide emotional and financial support for each other as opposed to short relationships etc AND SAVE ME, THE TAXPAYER, MONEY in the long run?

Its a different argument when you say you dont want gay guys (nice looking lesbians are ok, definitely!)kissing and rubbing their hands through each others chest hair etc in public, I don't want to see that either but that doesn't mean I don't want them to make whatever private commitment to each other. I assume the majority don't openly kiss etc in public, we just remember the minority that we might see who are no doubt annoying assholes, like straight couples who do the same. Tbh, I have no time for effeminate gay guys, why act like a woman? They annoy me like crazy and I avoid them like anyone else who annoys me, but again, Ill bet they annoy a lot of 'ordinary' gay guys as well. You know what would really annoy me if I was gay? Getting lumped in with the 'LBGT' acronym..lesbians ok, but people that aren't sure and others that are just batshit crazy and generally look like strange freaks would annoy the shit out of me.

As Ive said before though, this whole thing is unimportant and just a diversion from real issues..

I think the majority of people against gay marriage have those views because of their religious beliefs. Even though I do not think separation between church and state actually exists because religion shapes who you are, you morals and values. That is why the court needs to step in because imposing the values of one religion (all religions included) on the entire country is wrong.

I think the courts need step in when the majority will prohibit someone from pursuing Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If the majority got its way interracial marriage would be prohibited in some places and schools would be segregated.



I don't like seeing it either that is because I don't find it natural because I am straight but, I find it just as awkward and inappropriate when a man and a women are making out and groping each other in public. Isn't kissing someone you love a form of freedom of expression and therefore protected.

I as a straight male am defending rights of everyone, because I don't think it is right to deny the rights of anyone just because you don't like/understand them. I am certainly not recruiting teens to be gay or pushing the gay agenda. Are you saying it is criminal to be in support of gay rights? Doesn't that go against the first amendment?

Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

The gay marriage movement started in 1989 with an article by Andrew Sullivan in The New Republic. Public opinion was decidedly against him at that time, but the movement picked up steam through Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank and a backlash against California's Proposition 22 in 2000. The state courts declared it unconstitutional and voters came back with Proposition 8. The majority of the state courts found 8 to be constitutional, but it was appealed to the Federal District Court in Northern California where Judge Vaughn Walker, who was himself gay (although he previously kept it a secret), claimed it wasn't constitutional under due process and equal protection clauses.

When challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court claimed that litigants had no standing. Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Harris refused to defend the proposition, something that was really without precedent. Meanwhile, other judges around the country followed suit in claiming that the anti-same sex marriage statutes were unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court, writing for the minority, said that standing should have been granted and the law allowed to stand based on the principles of federalism under the 10th Amendment. Even Andrew Sullivan agreed that voters should decided on a state-by-state basis rather than by judicial fiat. That's the history of this so far.

There will always be a dispute over this for several reasons: historically, Anglo-American laws were based on natural law and/or common law, both ultimately based on theism. Same-sex marriage is a new right that never before existed in history and is based on positive law, which in a sense declares that something is good because it is law and no deeper than that (in a sense based on circular reasoning). There's also original intent, which means when the federal constitution was written, what was the meaning of the clauses and amendments according to their authors? It does not mean that amendments are ignored or silliness like that. There are also religious differences that are significant. Liberal religious beliefs have no problem with same-sex marriage while conservative ones do. That means that it will never find acceptance among the majority of evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Hasidic Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Nor will it find acceptance in much of Asia, Africa and Russia. So to say, "just get over it" doesn't work and doesn't reflect the reality for most of the world.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

We should probably leave Bible quotes out of this because we could end up doing this all night .

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16- Stoning to death if you use the lords name in vain

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24- Rape victim should be stoned if they don't yell loud enough

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21- Should be stoned if you disobey your parents

The Bible is full of out dated ideas, we shouldn't pick and choose which ones are still valid since we are not "God" and therefore prone to error.

I was trying to appeal the the religious folk. I'll try to keep bible quoting to a minimum since I am no religious scholar.

well, bottom line, some of us will never accept gay marriage, and that doesn't mean that those of us that are opposed hate anything or anybody, myself I will never accept it.

and I know this will never happen, but, why not all of them just "stay in the closet" and do what they want to do behind closed doors.

can't he question just be easily flipped and asked why can't they just come out of the closet and do what they want?

this world belongs to those who can assert their will. everyone else is along for the ride.

what you think is right or wrong means nothing to someone who doesn't recognize the basis for YOUR definitions of right and wrong.

IMO there are more important things to worry about than whether a couple of cocksuckers can share benefits or not.

yes, that's true,there are more important things to discuss.

we agree on that.

Exactly, and I'll do likewise. My point was, anyone can cherry pick Bible quotes to suit their agenda.

Now I personally believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but I also believe that man has translated it in very contradictory ways to suit their own beliefs. But Leviticus is pretty clear on homosexuality if you ask me. Because the translation is the same across the board (Greek, Aramaic, etc.).

But again, best to keep the Bible out of it .

We also have to remember that per the Declaration of Independence, our unalienable rights come from our Creator. Legal positivists tend to ignore that and only defer to the U.S. Constitution, which is more secular. It has to be remembered that both are founding documents and should be taken in that context. Another founding document is the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that says: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." It is also important to note that every one of the fifty states has references to God, or the Almighty or the Creator in its constitution. Even New York and California. That does NOT mean this country was founded as a Christian nation (see the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796), but it was clearly founded as a monotheistic one. Readers can debate their own conclusions.

Both the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance were composed prior to the ratification of the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers composed the US Constitution not as a document that is more secular; they composed one that is entirely secular. The Founding Fathers could have composed a document that was sectarian; as James Madison's Convention notes reveal, the subject was never considered.

The US Constitution was composed and ratified in reaction to the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation as a national governing fundamental law. The states that emerged from the territory governed by the Northwest Ordinance composed constitutions that comported with the US Constitution.

Correct, Oli. But you know what else?

They were all God fearing believers who would be sickened by the Far Left's agenda to make this a Godless nation via the very documents that they labored over.

I won't quote anything, but I find religion/theology interesting so I will try to respond without bring up the specific Bible passages. I don't think I was cherry picking for an agenda. I think it is valid to "quote" Jesus from the Gospel of Luke, I say this because Christianity (Catholicism, Baptist, Protestant) are based on the teachings of Jesus. Regardless if you think he is the son of God or not, no doubt he was a radical figure who challenged the status quo. His teachings were in conflict with Jewish authorities and the teachings of the Torah(I very well could be wrong) which is why they challenged him, called him a drunkard etc. So since the we should take what Jesus "said" as gospel (pun intended) I kind of feel the Old Testament should be taken with a grain of salt.

I deliberately "quoted" Jesus because I feel his teachings are more important (for Christians) than the Old Testament which people seem to pick and choose (especially religious leaders) which verses that should be practiced (eating pork, shellfish and rabbit are all prohibited in Leviticus)

I'm not trying to offend you or insult your religion/book you may find holy, just what I took from my time at Catholic school (Christian Brothers 6th-12th) and Baptist church (11 years). I may have a lot to learn.



Definitely more important things going on in the US social issues like this are used to fill up news time so they don't have to report on important things

I'm a practicing Catholic. 55 years old. Catholic school Nuns from K through eight, four years of the Marist Brothers in high school, then four years of the Jesuits at Fordham University (and I needn't tell you that the Jesuits are a bit on the liberal side).

To be honest I am not sure what that "confused" face thing is referring to.

I was trying to cover my bases for anyone who read that.

I didn't know you had such an extensive Catholic history.

Growing up people are (in my case) indoctrinated with the traditionalist views and only after I "left" Christianity was I able to come to more liberal conclusions. Seems the Jesuit schooling did that for you

Even though there are sociological arguments that can be made against gay marriage, that many are against it because of religious reasons is beside the point. There is no Constitutional support for it. No more so than there is for abortion. But corrupt, activist judges have twisted the original intent and meaning of "right to privacy" and "equal protection under the law" in order to legalize these things. Everything not expressly written in the Constitution as being part of the federal government's jurisdiction belongs to the individual states. That includes gay marriage and abortion. But the liberals, for all their talk about public opinions changing in their favor, know they would lose in the court of public opinion. In fact, they did lose in most of the states when it came to gay marriage and that's why they chose to force their agenda through the courts just like they did abortion years before. It all comes back to so called "rights" they claim they have but is not given to them in the Constitution or anywhere else.



That's an unfortunately bad translation of the New Testament that secular liberals especially love to quote. No judgement means everything is OK and they can't be called into question about the things they support.

Of course, God knows we have to make judgement every day of one kind or another. The correct scripture reads: "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment."



Secular liberals also love to cite passages in the Old Testament, which seem harsh and archaic, in order to call all of scripture into question.

Those of us, and unfortunately that doesn't include many Christians themselves, who understand the Bible know there is no need to "pick and choose." The Jehovah of the Old Testament, who gave the harsh laws you posted above, is the very same Jesus in the New Testament.

Many ask, How can that be?, as they seem so different. The Lord originally intended to give the Israelites the fullness of the Gospel (found on the original stone tablets that Moses later broke upon discovering their rebellion). Thereafter, with the Israelites having proven they were not ready to live the fulness of the Gospel, were given the lower law - known as the Law of Moses - and had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years before finally entering the Promised Land.

The Law of Moses was a strict law, one set up for a theocracy where the Lord was their King. Thus, something like blasphemy, for instance, was the same as treason under our law and punishable by death. The examples you gave above may seem harsh but they were only carried out only if the offender refused to repent. It's not like an adulterer or disobedient son was immediately taken outside the city and stoned.

You say these things are "out dated," and that's true, but it's not due to the reason you're assuming. They are outdated because the same God who gave those laws later came down as a man and gave the higher law or the fulness of the Gospel, which fulfilled, transcended, and superseded the lower law.

Many, including secular liberals, take more of a liking to what they read in the New Testament, finding it easier to stomach and easier to live. In reality, the higher law is such because it requires far more obedience. For instance, no longer were you commanded simply to not to commit adultery. Now, to even lust after a woman is already committing adultery in your heart. No longer were you commanded to just not kill. To even be angry with your brother put you in danger of God's judgement. And so on.

If you find the time I would like to hear some of these sociological arguments.

I feel that we are free independent human beings with the right to own yourself, which means you can do what you want with your body. We should be free to exercise these rights as long as you respect the rights of other human beings(W/O getting into when a fetus has rights). So with abortion I think the government (state and federal) should stay out of it which includes state funded abortions and it should be left up to the individual. Its really nobody's business

You are implying that only liberals are for equal rights for gays and lesbians. Log Cabin Republicans are for equal rights and 61% of republicans under 30 are in favor of same sex marriage(I really hates polls though). I think you will see this trend amongst younger republicans grow in the years to come. People don't have a right to invalidate a commitment made by a couple that they never met and will never meet because they don't agree with a lifestyle choice.

We obviously have different interpretations of freedom of expression (some would say marriage is the ultimate expression of love) and what the Declaration of Independence says of unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.



It is funny how republicans (which I can only assume you are) love to say think if you are not a Christian then you must be a liberal. I said liberal once but only to copy the language or a post I was replying to. Other than that I try to leave left-wing, right-wing, liberal, conservative out of the conversation.

You are quoting Matthew 7:1

Luke 6:37 King James version
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" Hasn't changed that much

So this is the correct scripture. So why is Matthews 7:1 correct and Luke 6:37 incorrect? God knows we judge but telling us we shouldn't, again we have different interpretations of the Bible and the meaning of the teachings of Jesus.



Being secular or being a liberal has nothing to do with it. I may be secular and I maybe liberal compared to you but its really irrelevant. I am not calling the scriptures as a whole in question.

I understand that you feel you know the Bible and you probably feel I don't because I am a "liberal" who cherry picks. We obviously have a different view on who Jesus was and the importance that his teachings should have. I kind of already stated my feelings on Jesus and the Old Testament in another post, expanding would be futile.

For one thing, marriage between a man and woman - and the subsequent family that usually results - has been the social norm for millenia. The family is the building block of society. But now, because of these newfound rights gays have, the definition of marriage is supposed to be turned on it's head? I've already gone on many times before how this country long ago outlawed polygamy, though that actually did have Constitutional protection due to religious freedom, unlike gay marriage. So what makes gay marriage any different? How long before we have people wanting to marry their dog or their car? How far do we stretch the definition of marriage to suit people's claims about their "rights."



If gays want to do their thing behind closed doors, that's one thing. Them trying to get government sanction for it, and changing the definition of marriage in the process, is another. That's when it becomes other people's business. A woman having an abortion is automatically somebody else's business - the child inside her. But, like the gay marriage issue, liberals are all about changing the definition of things, i.e. it's "not a child" or worthy of protection until it's crossed that magical second trimester line if not even later.



You can quote polls all you want. In state after state it was voted that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. It's why the gay marriage supporters had to get that changed through the courts. They didn't, and still don't, have the votes. Maybe that would eventually change over time but it should still be left up to the states. Not a single overreaching, activist judge.

And nobody is "invalidating" anything. Gays can be "committed" to each other all they want. They don't have a Constitutional right to redefine marriage in order to give their relationships legitimacy.



You are taking these words and stretching them extremely far in order to justify whatever suits you. Unless we're talking about freedom of speech, which is another matter, there's nothing in the Constitution about "freedom of expression." And, using your logic, anyone could use the excuse of having the right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" to justify almost anything.



This is why I don't think secular liberals should be quoting scripture - they don't understand it, much less believe it. Matthew 7:1 and Luke 6:37 are two translations of the same utterance by Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount. The correct translation I posted above applies to both.

So marriages that don't produce children are not part of the social norm and therefore shouldn't be allowed? So much for adoption. Its a good thing we don't allow older couples to marry and sterile people are prohibited from marrying also.

People marrying dogs is a stretch, I know that exist but it is not really a rational argument since animals can't think like us and have no choice in what they can do. Where marriage between two consenting adults who should not be restricted.



What business is it of anyone's if Rob and Joe or Jane and Mary decide to get married they aren't interfering with your life at all but, people have no problem telling someone them they can't do something because of a word. Marriage. Don't ideas and definitions change all the time? Words we use today have had different meanings during different periods of time.



Well if believing that no one has the right to restrict you from doing what you want as long as it does not interfere with the rights of another then I guess I am stretching these words. Using that logic does not justify almost anything.

I am talking about the freedom of speech, but also Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression"



Having a little trouble mentioning religion without mentioning politics.

By your logic a Democrat could never write a book on Reagan because they don't understand being a Republican. Just because you like to classify someone as secular doesn't automatically make you the for most authority of religious doctrine

How do you know Matthew 7:1 wasn't a paraphrase of what was actually said? Perhaps Luke is elaborating on Jesus's words which you seem to have no problem discrediting to suit your purposes.

It is the correct translation because you say so, interesting analysis. Because I am a Christian, I am right and you are wrong. Doesn't necessarily work that way

Ive yet to meet any person - who takes religion serious- who isnt 2 or 3 conversations away from admitting they hate a certain group who don't agree with them, in this instance, gay people. By hate, I mean contempt/disregard and/or the And what right do they have to promise anyone an eternal punishment in hell etc. whilst its not been said outright in recent posts, itheres an undercurrent of contempt - its easy to hide your personal prejudices, in fact have them confirmed, in the pages of a book.

Two good quotes which I think explains how stupid and naive these beliefs can be when not kept in check:

"Thus the mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did. Still less can they hope to tell us the "meaning" of later discoveries and developments which were, when they began, either obstructed by their religion or denounced by them. And yet — the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything. Not just to know that god exists, and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what "he" demands of us — from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality. In other words, in a vast and complicated discussion where we know more and more about less and less, yet can still hope for some enlightenment as we proceed, one faction — itself composed of warring factions — has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential information we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude "belief" from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted.

"One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody-not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms-had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think - though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one - that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell."
— Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything)

I dont see why anyone with more than a moderate belief in religion should be given any airtime in any debate. Its a fantasy and a delusion and people who push it should be treated as a bit flaky. In fact, just as its been said for gay people here, so as it should for religious people-I dont care what they do, as long as its behind closed doors and I don't have to listen or be witness to it.

That doesn't mean that the Constitution is based on positive law. The Constitution is derived from the Virginia Constitution, which is also secular, but both assumed natural law, much of the through John Locke. Considering that all of the authors were theists, considering their education and influences, and considering their own writings, there is no doubt that the Constitution is a natural law document up to and including the first ten amendments -- and probably several subsequent ones too. Remember, nonsectarian does not mean atheistic nor even agnostic. That means it's not "totally secular" as you assert. I recommend reading David Sehat, "The Myth of American Religious Freedom" (Oxford University Press, 2010) for historical context.

I am religious, and don't hate anybody just for disagreeing. In the case of gay people, my hostility is only due to the methods their enforcers sometimes use, but it's all about the method, I don't blame people for being born in a certain way because it wasn't their choice.

And I think you are wrong about religion being that bad; some people abuse it by threatening with hell anyone who disagrees, but that's just extremism, not welcome among normal religious people. Religion is meant to bring peace and hope, if somebody twists the concept, it's not the fault of the original concept.

Mainstream christianity teaches that sinners and non believers will go to hell does it not though Dwalin? And be punished for eternity...

Im not saying religion is bad, its just a faith some people have in a fantastical idea and if it somehow gives them hope and comfort, great, but it should go no further than that

First of all i'm not religious at all, but the vast majority of my family are and i find Fergies comments incredibly simplistic and offensive to people of (any) faith. To call anyone who believes in a religion stupid and naive; is in itself naive, since some of the most intelligent people on the planet are religious, take your two Christopher Hitchens quotes to any highly educated Theologian and you'll get laughed out of the room, in the same way a moron with two bible quotes will get laughed off by any highly educated Atheist. To look over the amount of good Theology has done for the planet is hilarious, the influence it's had on the Arts, Philosophy, Literature, Innovation and even Science is immense.

Hitchens and Dawkins while they come closer to my overall view are just as closeminded as any preacher who feels gays should be ashamed of themselves or whatever, and they do more harm than good towards other non-religious types as nutjobs like Pat Robertson do towards Christianity. Your last paragraph is... well saying that anybody of a religious persuasion shouldn't be able to put across their viewpoint is just... i don't even know.

I barely know anything about the Bible and have only read 3 of it's books as well as whatever i read in my time in Catholic School, so i would never feel comfortable quoting passages from it on the Internet whether it was positively or negatively supporting it, and i usually don't give much stock to people who do so.

I am sure they won't if they basically remain good people. There is a quote by Apostle Paul:



I get it that the important thing is how you live and how you act, and what you have in your heart. If your are a good person, even if you are not part of Christianity but live as a good person in conformity with general Christian principles, you aren't supposed to go to hell just because you aren't a believer.
Maybe somebody will say it's a misinterpretation on my part, but I am a believer in a merciful and loving God, not somebody whose main goal is to send most people possible to hell.
There are many atheists and members of other religions that are much worthier of Heaven than many of those who proclaim themselves Christians.

Hate is a word that's thrown around loosely. Hate means a passionate dislike for someone, an intense feeling of disliking someone. It doesn't mean disagreeing with someone or with what someone does or believes. There are moderate Muslims who disagree with Christian and Jewish beliefs but have no personal animosity toward them and do not wish them harm. Likewise, there are Christians who disagree with same-sex marriage, but that does not mean that Christians hate those who support it. That's a leap of quantum proportions. It is also not hate to have certain beliefs in the afterlife. Christianity, Islam and Orthodox Judaism all have their versions of eternal punishment, and they all believe that one who decides who receives it is God, not themselves. So let's keep the word "hate" out of the conversation.

PB, did you actually study religion/theology at Fordham or am I misinterpreting your post?

Dwalin, I pretty much agree with your post. Most people I know are non-practicing Muslims while I'm Orthodox Christian from my family, however deep down I doubt I will never be a believer no matter how much I'd like. I'm an atheist though and through, maybe even a nihilist and I'm okay with it.
I'd LIKE to believe since studies have shown that prayer and being able to believe in something wholeheartedly can increase your general feeling of happiness, health and optimism of a possible outcome, but I don't think I will ever be able to.

I think i have a similar outlook as you, something that could change as i get older but i doubt it. One thing i feel good about is that most of my family have a sincere belief in Religion and an Afterlife something that must be somewhat comforting, but at this point in time if i was to tell myself i believed i'd just be lying.

Im not sure which part of the quotes anyone could genuinely brush aside.

And why should we take seriously anyone who has a faith and feels that alone entitles them to a say in how others live their lives? It entitles them to nothing except their faith. Again, to quote Hitchens, "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Now if they were basing their opinion on historical fact or some genuine experience in a relevant field of work, and could demonstrate that, I might understand. But to have someone prove their point of view today because it says, in a book written and rewritten by 100s, perhaps thousands of unknown people, that someone woke from the dead, claimed to be the son of god, walked on water, told stories and turned water into wine 2000 years ago is just, well, ridiculous. I understand the parables and the nice, ethical meanings and they have their place in Sunday schools for kids. But thats just teaching common sense and calling it religion.

The amount of good theology/religion has done, as you point out, in the arts, literature etc is undeniable, although the Catholic church is still guilty of some scurrilous attempts to defame some who disagreed with it in these fields. Science and innovation is debatable...

What I don't appreciate is is the power over people and the fanaticism that comes with religion. You might argue thats just a minority, but unfortunately, like other groups they judge so quickly, thats what people focus on. Take a look at the world just now and tell me honestly if you think religion as a whole is doing well? Fanatics threatening to wipe countries, races and other religions off the face of the planet, the proliferation of Aids throughout Africa, the gaudy riches within the vatican with beggars lining the streets outside holding pictures of the virgin Mary (I was there a few years ago and walked passed them all), the raping, and subsequent denial by senior members of the vatican, of children for years etc etc

Again, I would stress, I haven't any issue with individuals who get comfort and hope from their beliefs, just don't follow the diktat that forces you to impress that belief on others!

Im not entirely sure about religion's contribution to science either-I understand the burning, persecution and house arrest others risked to further scientific ideas though.

Lastly, to compare Hitchens and Dawkins to a madman like Pat Robertson smacks of desperation and uses the same tactics of the extremists who they bravely attack (Im not calling you an extremist btw!). Both put forward reasoned arguments with evidence to back up EVERY SINGLE thing they say, so the comparison isnt the best

Agree with a good portion of this post.



I can agree with that. But you have the same thing with most social crusaders just take a look at the race profiteer Al Sharpton's lengthy career.



Well put.

You can be a nonbeliever and still appreciate the words and the overall message of religious texts. If you don't feel Jesus is the son of God you can still respect who he was and what he represented, especially when you look historically at the time period he lived in.

"You can be a nonbeliever and still appreciate the words and the overall message of religious texts. If you don't feel Jesus is the son of God you can still respect who he was and what he represented, especially when you look historically at the time period he lived in."

Dwalin/Dude....exactly. Pride makes the majority not believe in this though. Simply because of the overwhelming inability to compromise by the majority. Borne out of years of indoctrination, and more recently, a strengthened need to "believe" because of the global spread/threat of islamic fundamentalism (and no doubt atheism!)

Sorry i can't muti quote you because i'm using my phone and it's just to annoiong to do so. I really can't keep up a proper debate because of my aforementioned using of said crapppy phone .

Even though i brought up a few things there i felt you missed my overall point that calling anyone who believes in religion stupid or naive is incredibly offensive, even though i'm not religious most of my family are. You are using baseless tactics some religious people use against Atheists, in that you are accusing Christians as a whole as attemting to have a say in aspects of everyones life, as you clearly know The Bible, Quran, whatever is up to interpretation just as much as anything, and some use quotes to verify their beliefs; there are plenty of Religious people who don't care about/ support some of the issues you are clearly referring to here.

I don't really have the time nor feel the need to debate miracles since i don't believe in them myself, but there is a ton of more pragmatic Theologists and areas of Theology like Moral Relativism that may interest you, that's if you even have any interest in debating this subject with believers without having to pull out Christopher Hitchens quotes; just saying.

Anyway it's took me ages to write this out on my phone, so i'll just wrap it up with a few words on my Hitchens,Dawkins/Robertson comparison before returning to this later if i have the time. While my comparison was no doubt extreme, i feel that Dawkins and Hitchens work appeal more to the popular market, and they spend(t) their time debunking Creationists and the like rather than debating genuine Theologists they clearly take awway exposure from people much more qualified than themselves, who usually only find an audience from fellow intellectuals. I'm also not a fan of the militant atheism they show, something that has got a load of criticism from the Atheist/ Skeptic community as a whole.

Sorry for any typos, missing words, sentences that don't make sense i'll edit this later.

No probs Camarel, you make good points and seem like an honest Scotsman!

But, if you went to Vegas in the hope of winning a million based on the faith that "they" tell you you can and millions of others have, is that naive or sensible? I compare that to any other faith. I dare you to bet your mortgage on the second coming or whatever else in the bible...obviously not...

The weakness with religion is that we, people who dont believe, can focus on the minority for an easy hit, catholic priests shagging kids, silly bible stuff, isis etc just as people who do beleive, gays, sinners etc. But, the easy arguement against religion is that theres no substance really, its sand through your fingers-thats what pisses me off, These people have so much power with NOTHING at all to back it up, just historical shite, which goes back to the Hitchens quote...

Miracles, you dont have time??? Well everyone else apparently beleives in them! (Sorry if that sounds a bit arsy, not meaning to mate!)

A. First, there are plenty of atheists, agnostics and general unbelievers who believe that they are entitled what others believe and how they should live their lives. So this version of "holier than thou" doesn't cut it. Hitchens and Dawkins in their books absolutely did tell other people what to believe (or what not to believe) and regularly use insults and mockery to do it. They have (or had in Hitchens' case) faith in their own set of beliefs, especially since much of it does not rely on evidence. In fact, some are contradictory, such as his self-righteous attack on Mother Teresa because she gave hospice care. In doing so he appealed to some sort of morality that's based on his own subjective standard. A more consistent approach would have him accept that all of her behaviors were determined.

B. Their books are not full of historical facts, but a mix of facts and assertions. Big difference.

C. What you call ridiculous is pretty offensive to a lot of people. There are also works by scholars who have investigated this things that you dismiss, and they came to very different conclusions after evaluating all of the evidence. On the resurrection, for example, Gary Habermas has done some excellent work. Rather than just slam beliefs because you don't like them, look over the facts, evidence and arguments, then come to an educated conclusion. It's not without reason that the world's top atheist analytic philosopher, Antony Flew, who spent years debating Christians, left atheism for theism.

D. As for Camarel's comparison, the evidence would show that despite your opinion of Pat Robertson he has done far more for the poor and needy than Hitchens and Dawkins combined.

Not sure why my mention of Pat Robertson was brought up at all, since i was clearly disagreeing with all of the anti-religious comments made in this thread; but ok.

Pat Robertson - +1

You were required to take a certain amount of religious credits back then (1977-1981). And Catholic High School in the mid-'70s? Forget about it. One full religious class a day was mandatory for all four years.

It's all moot anyway. I graduated Fordham in the Spring of '81, and went right into the Teamsters. I was in the office at 813 by '88.

@ Fergie: Extreme Atheism is the fastest growing "religion" in the world. They're as fanatical in their non-beliefs as any fundamentalist is in their beliefs.

And Christopher Hitchens was a divisive scumbag who got the death he deserved. I only hope he suffered half as much as has been reported.

Does that make me a bad Christian? Yup. But I'm Catholic, in a bad mood today (unrelated to you guys, I think you all know why), and I trust that God will forgive my outburst.

Faithful, lets take it point by point...

A. First paragraph means nothing until you state Hitchens/Dawkins do not rely on evidence, absolute bullshit, they're whole lives are/where based on evidence gathering-do you know anything about them? You name Mother Theresa..lets put that to rest, she was a clever/naive person who was unfortunate enough to praise dictators across the world and stated time and again that abortion was THE greatest threat to world peace. Got famous after a malcolm muggeridge doc in the 60's which was bullshit as well..

B. simply bullshit, read the books (you haven't obviously, otherwise Ill ask you more about them, ill not even insist on detail

C. Again, I cant change my opinion, Bertrand Russell gave the analogy of a teapot circling the world which anyone could believe in, who are you to dismiss it?

D. Stupid comparison and a rather silly point to even try and make

Pizza, Im disappointed with your comment about Christopher Hitchens, he died a long, slow, painful death through cancer. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, no matter their beliefs. As I said earlier though and you've proved my point, believers are always only a few conversations away from hating people.....

(And I like you pizza!)

A. Okay, you don't like Mother Teresa, sounds like you're the one who's a few conversations from hating people.

B. I have them on ebooks. Right now I can find "God Is Not Great" and "The Portable Atheist" by Hitchens and "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. I'm sure I have more, but that's what's currently coming up when I do a search on my hard drive. So what do you want to know?

C. Anybody can dismiss it. It's a stupid, silly analogy.

D. It's only valid if helping others means anything.

Maybe a few Hail Marys would have eased his pain. Although he probably said a few foxhole prayers that he'd never admit to. Not that he could admit it now anyway. Because, you know, he's worm food now. And if you think he suffered then, that's nothing compared to being distanced from God for eternity.

You see, I don't go for the Devil with the tail, and the fire and brimstone. True Hell is getting a glimpse of what paradise could have been, then being distanced from it for eternity.


I'm hardly a fanatic. I was only pointing out that Extreme Atheists are as hateful as any Extreme Fundamentalists.


I like you too, Fergie. But this is just another reason why religion and politics don't belong on message boards. No one ever changes anyone else's mind anyway, so what's the point?

Please don't waste your time reading any of Hitchens or Dawkins crap Faithful, from your comments here i have a feeling that you've already spent some time reading and (civilly) debating far more worthwhile people/texts.

A. You didn't answer my points about her, meeting/even laying wreaths on dictators graves, her distorted view of abortion and the hysterical programme when muggeridge "saw" a vision....

B. Have you read them?

C. My point about religion, do you get it??

D. You compared a fraud, who said he was healing/helping people against 2 authors and thinkers who put forward their measured opinions for anyone to consider and agree or refute.

Faithful, you seem a nice guy (tell me your taking the piss!:))

Camarel, your advice is to not read about evolution or arguments against religion? The two authors you mention are the 1st on anybody's list.

PB, you're right......

Lets all take 5, agree I was right and move on

Any fan of popular rehashed arguments, or Dawkins modern take on Darwins' On the Origin of Species, should read either them or if you are a fan of Militant Atheism you'd be lucky to find any finer.

My advice was not to read Dawkins or Hitchens, not once did i say don't read about evolution or arguments against religion, nice strawman though it's sad that i wont stay to see you knock it down.

The thing i find funny here is you are bringing up "arguments against religion" to people who have read much more (AAR) than you and have also read the Religious texts to debate from both sides. So good luck with that one!

I never said that, did I? You're intentionally ignoring the point about the nuclear family unit of a man, woman and children being the fundamental building block of society. Births out of wedlock, divorce, etc. have already screwed things up enough and now we're going to screw things up even further by changing the definition of marriage altogether?



If you want to believe that, fine, but the issue is the fact that it should be left up to the states. Not the courts. Once again, there is nothing in the Constitution that warrants or justifies gay marriage. Therefore, it is under the jurisdiction of the individual states. But that's where gay marriage supporters like yourself run into the problem of not having the majority of public opinion on your side.



The "gay marriage doesn't affect you" argument has always amused me. For one thing, the gay marriage supporters who so often use that argument wouldn't - and don't - give a damn if and when it did affect somebody.

Below are just three examples of the effects the gay marriage movement has had. There are many more. Many of which often infringe on the infinitely more important and fundamental religious rights of people. Of course, like I said above, gay marriage supporters couldn't care less. In fact, I imagine they look at these examples with a certain smugness and sense of satisfaction.

Employment

Example 1:

A Baptist-affiliated organization that places at-risk children in adoption or foster care terminated an employee because her admitted homosexual lifestyle was contrary to the organization’s core values. Accusing the organization of sexual orientation discrimination, she brought a federal lawsuit that the organization is still defending against more than a decade later. Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, Inc., 579 F.3d 722 (6th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2091.

Comment: Businesses that publicly operate according to religious beliefs should have the freedom to hire based on religious criteria they deem necessary to ensure that the working environment is supportive of those beliefs. This case illustrates that even overtly religious organizations can be sued for sexual orientation discrimination and that the resulting litigation can consume an organization’s resources for many years.

Example 2:

A New York City restaurant was ordered to pay $1.6 million to a lesbian chef and manager for allegedly discriminating based on sexual orientation and religion because the restaurant held weekly prayer meetings and the owner expressed the view that homosexual conduct is sinful. Salemi v. Gloria’s Tribeca, Inc., 115 A.D.3d 569, 982 N.Y.S.2d 458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Comment: The reported decision doesn’t say whether employees were told that the restaurant’s owner held out the business as operating according to traditional Christian beliefs. But it’s probably the most striking illustration of what effect a sexual orientation law can have on such a business.

Example 3:

A Minnesota health club, owned by Evangelical Christians and operated in light of biblical principles, was ordered by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1985 to stop hiring only employees who shared their religious beliefs in order to comply with state nondiscrimination laws. Blanding v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., 373 N.W.2d 784 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985), aff’d, 389 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. 1986).

Comment: This is a frequently cited case where a business that held itself out as operating on religious lines lost to nondiscrimination rules.

Issue: Employers, such as Boy Scouts of America, that exist to express or inculcate a religious or values-based message should be free to make hiring decisions based on their religious beliefs or values.
Issue: All employers should be free to establish reasonable employment regulations that are consistent with their values, including those relating to dress, grooming and use of private facilities.
Issue: All employees should be free to express their religious commitments in the workplace in reasonable, nondisruptive ways and on equal terms with similar expressions by other employees. Employees should not be terminated or disciplined for expressing their religious convictions about marriage, family and sexuality outside the workplace, any more than employees should be fired for expressing in nondisruptive ways alternative views on those topics outside the workplace.

Housing

Example 1:

A private Jewish university in New York City was sued by a lesbian couple for its policy of reserving its married student housing for male-female couples. The state’s highest court ruled that the university’s policy could be challenged as violating the city’s ordinance barring housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Levin v. Yeshiva Univ., 96 N.Y.2d 484 (2001).

Comment: Churches and other religiously affiliated organizations that own noncommercial housing units should have the freedom to give preferences to those of their own faith. Religious schools should have the freedom to establish values-based regulations for student housing, including regulations separating male and female housing and protecting values of privacy, modesty and sexual morality.

Example 2:

In 1996 the California Supreme Court ruled that a devout Presbyterian widow with traditional Christian morals violated state law when she desired to rent one of her properties only to couples who are married. The court explained that the widow could avoid compromising her religious beliefs by getting out of the rental business altogether. Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996).

Comment: Small landlords and landlords renting units closely associated with their family living arrangements should have the freedom to determine who will occupy such units. Mrs. Smith’s plight is perhaps the best-known case pitting the religious liberty of small landlords against the insensitivity of sweeping nondiscrimination laws. Note that it involves an unmarried heterosexual couple.



As I posted above, we're already seeing the bogus "rights" of gays affecting the actual Constitutional rights of others.



LOL! Spoken like a true liberal. Looking to the United Nations rather than the Constitution (which what this is all about).



It depends on how well they understood Reagan. I have yet to encounter a secular liberal that has even a moderate understanding of scripture. They have no desire to. The only time they cite it is to criticize it.



Even if you want to throw out the translation I mentioned, what you're doing is no different then when liberals cite the scripture about "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." They also misuse that in order to justify whatever they want. Of course, they ignore what Christ said to the woman taken in adultery after the crowd had left - "Go thy way and sin no more."



Hitchens and Dawkins? Really? Rest assured, Hitchens is singing a different tune now, as will Dawkins when he passes on.

A. I didn't see a question, but I did see you use a lot of loaded language.

B. Mostly skimming, stopping to read certain parts that I find more interesting, that sort of thing. I rarely read any book from beginning to end. Don't have the time to do that. Let's take Dawkins' book for example. I'll admit that he's a good writer in the sense that he has good writing skills, fine prose. I find his argumentation weak. Same really for Hitchens, who in some areas I like. Hitchens seems to be the more caustic of the two, with a strong sarcastic streak. They both tend to attack people who don't act as they should and they attack straw men. Hitchens' work is more autobiographical in nature, more personal. That's fine, but mostly reads like one set of bad experiences after another more than anything else. Both are screeds, long-winded rants, are short when it comes to refutation. Both cited Michael Shermer, a Southern California atheist and skeptic who has written many books, but fails to understand certain important aspects of philosophy. This came through in a debate he had with Greg Koukl, where Koukle repeatedly tried to explain that one's epistemology needs an ontological foundation, but Shermer just wasn't getting it. Dawkins, I think, has a longer section on morality, and it has no foundation and ends up being subjective. He's aware of Antony Flew but only covered him in a footnote, but he should have read Flew's discussion on the is/ought fallacy since Dawkins falls right into it. I also noticed that they didn't include contemporary atheist philosophers such as Michael Martin, nor Christian philosophers like Greg Bahnsen, William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga. They discussed alleged Bible contradictions, but neglected to deal with the solutions that have been around for many years and put out there by scholars. Instead they take on old and weak arguments, sort of like a professional basketball team claiming victory after they beat a bunch of elementary (primary) school players. They had their chance to take on the grown-ups, the experts, but failed to do so.

C. Your point on religion is simply irrational. Bertrand Russell's teapot was one that circled the sun and related to the burden of proof. It's the ancestor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is really an example of mockery and a straw man since no one believes it. Some viewpoints are less likely. Well, duh. Actually some viewpoints can be ruled out altogether as being impossible, some physically and others logically. I read Russell's creed many years ago, "Why I Am Not A Christian," and his basic point is that there was insufficient evidence. However, by showing the impossibility of the contrary (called transcendental argumentation) it is possible to show that the entire atheist worldview is impossible, then one is left with the contrary, which is theism.

D. Robertson isn't a fraud when it comes to charitable contributions, but his beliefs are out there for anyone to refute as well, just as I did on Dawkins and Hitchens. I'll even throw in Shermer and Sam Harris if you want. These so-called New Atheists don't have the same reasoning ability as the older ones and are more squishy, but unlike the older generation enjoys mocking and insulting people. If I wanted that I'd go see Don Rickles. At least in person Hitchens was more reasonable.

E. I am a nice guy, but in this country taking a piss means something else entirely! LOL

If this is personal don't answer what is your religious affiliation? Catholic? or a denomination of Christianity? Just out of curiosity


You implied that the central part of marriage is to produce babies and if you don't you are not part of the social norm.

I wouldn't say births out of wedlock and divorce have screwed things up, throughout history we have plenty of examples of successful people coming out of these situations. I don't see a total global meltdown coming if we "change" the definition.



I am not arguing the fact that states should have more authority in some aspects. If you consider majority of the people you speak to who agree with you but national polls show 48% are in favor and 38% oppose



I don't disagree with that at all. This has nothing to do with gay marriage affecting you.



As long as the prayer meetings were not mandatory. If the chef and manager had a choice not to be there and not hear what the owner had to say. If I working at this restaurant I wouldn't go to the prayer meetings. Knowing that you have a homosexual on staff and singling them out in front of the rest of the staff condemning them to Hell is rude. The owner has a right to feel that way and to "preach" that but not at a mandatory workplace meeting. This has nothing to do with gay marriage affecting you.

I don't feel like responding to all of them but I if a religious organization has standards that you don't meet they have a right not to hire you or allow you to leave there. But you can't say I am firing you because you are a homosexual, that is discrimination. How it should be done "When you were hired you signed an at will agreement. As of (fill in date) your services are no longer needed."

The cases don't have anything to do with the right to marriage. They are about gay rights in conflict with religious institutions. If you are gay and go to a church ask a priest to marry you, it is not wrong for the priest to say "Unfortunately I can not because according to the Bible and book I consider to be the word of God, marriage should be between a man and a women." If someone goes to a Town Justice and says will you marry us, the judge can't say no because of religious feelings. The right to dedicate your life to someone you love does not restrict the rights of others.



Spoken with true ignorance, since I first said it was about freedom of speech, with a link to Cornell University Law School First Amendment definition "The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference."

Brought up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because Americans helped write it, and the United States voted in favor of it.

Big difference between a Liberal and a Libertarian. Big difference between religion and politics, you can't seem to differentiate the two.



You probably have no desire to find a moderate any interpretation that differs from your you view as criticism.

It seems you live in a small world then, I've met extremely intelligent Christians, Muslims and Atheist. It was actually a Muslim who opened my mind to how great the teachings of Jesus are. Before I would argued the Bible is complete nonsense now I have a desire to know more about Jesus(as a man not as a son of God).



Well when he says "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." He is telling a crowd, he is teaching them the error their way(how the Torah's teachings were not correct). It seems he deliberately waited for the crowd to leave when he tells the women "Go thy way and sin no more," I take that as go and stop violating the Torah because I won't be here to protect you next time, if she continued to be an adulterer the same crowd would come and stone her because they were following the Torah

I'm Mormon.



Then you haven't been paying attention. Much of today's societal ills are due to the breakdown of the family unit and traditional values. Government legitimization of gay marriage only takes us further down that road.



I'm more than happy to leave it up to the states, as it should be. It doesn't mean I would consider those states who would legalize gay marriage as being morally right but it would at least be following the Constitution. What's happening right now, i.e. gay marriage being legalized by liberal activist judges, is against the Constitution.



Once again, the point is we are already seeing the so called "rights" of gays intruding upon the rights of others. The kinds of things gay marriage supporters said would never happen. And it's only going to get worse.



The subject at hand has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression. And it certainly has nothing to do with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You say you're not a liberal but only a liberal would even attempt to bring something like that up. This issue has to do with the U.S. Constitution alone and what powers it gives to the federal government and those retains by the states. Period.



Well that's another untenable position many secular liberals take. They like Jesus' teachings but don't believe He was divine. Christ's central teaching was that He was the Son of God and Savior of the world. He was either what He professed to be or else a mad man. You can't have it both ways.



While Jesus certainly condemned all the vain additions the Jewish leaders made to the Law of Moses, this situation didn't pertain to that. Those who brought the woman to Jesus were correct in that she was guilty of adultery and, under the Law of Moses, should be stoned. However, Christ (as the One who originally gave the Law of Moses) had come to once again offer the fulness of the Higher Law or the Gospel, which fulfilled, transcended, and superseded the lower Law of Moses (which was simply full of types and shadows pointing to the eventual Atonement of Christ). Contrary to what many secular liberals would like to think, this did not mean He condoned or excused her adultery in any way. Forgiveness was available to her, if she repented and "sinned no more," but the latter part of that exchange liberals seem to prefer to overlook when they simply quote the first part about "casting a stone."

Ivy.....that was one of the best rebuttals that I've read....great job, well said.

Social ills? Which are you referring to?

Our biggest social problems come from economically deprived areas, my opinion



They are not what you call "gay" rights but equal rights of American citizens and they shouldn't be changed or be called into question because you are "different." I don't see how the right to be gay or the right to marry someone you love is infringing on the rights of straight people.



The subject at hand is freedom. How all people are equal and no one should be restricted to live life to the fullest because of religious qualms. The federal government needs to step in (I hate myself for saying that) when a state government allows a religious opinion to influence the government's decision making.

I really don't see a valid political argument without religious overtones. Forcing people to live life the way you (not you exactly just the word I am using) want to define how it should be lived is what the actual issue is.

You define it how you do I define it how I do, who is wrong? Neither of us, because we live in a country where difference of opinion and different ideas are tolerated. Making something unlawful because it is in conflict with you personal views is just not right.



Since being liberal is a political ideology it has nothing to do with religion.

I can have it anyway I want since I can interpret what the bible says, what history says and what reason tells me.

Well I don't consider him a mad man, but no I do not think he was son of god. Before and after his death many people who were defying the Romans and the Jewish leaders claimed to be the messiah it was not an uncommon thing. Since the gospels were written by man 40 years after Jesus died, I have to say yes I am skeptical. That being said I don't deny the greatness of who Jesus was historically.



I will just say your views on the Bible and mine differ greatly.

Economically deprived, i.e. poverty is one of the main examples. Crime is another. Kids being raised in one-parent households is another. It's a continual cycle that is the result of the breakdown of the family unit.



I realize you believe that but that isn't the question. The question is, is there Constitutional support for gay marriage? The activist judges are using "Equal protection under the law" to justify allowing gays to be married to but it is, needless to say, quite a stretching and liberal interpretation. Much like "Right to privacy" was used to justify abortion. Gay people have the same rights as the rest of us - to enter into a marriage between one man and one woman. If they want to enter into a gay marriage, that is recognized and sanctioned by the government, that is an issue that should be left up to each individual state. Whether it directly infringes on the rights of straight people, although we've already seen that it does, is beside the point.



Once again, it doesn't matter if religion is the primary reason why people are against gay marriage. The federal government, under the Constitution, has no right to "step in" in this matter. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives it the right to usurp the state's rights in this issue. But you, and other gay marriage supporters, are all to happy to do that anyway and pretend that there is justification for it, even if it means ignoring the Constitution altogether. The Constitution means something or it doesn't. Liberals shouldn't have the luxury of misinterpreting it according to their own social whims which they then use activist judges to enforce.



That's just it, it isn't a matter of our personal definition. Or how we (or even the Supreme Court justices) choose to interpret it. The Constitution says what it says. If you really cared about freedom, you would be fine with leaving it up to the citizens of each state to decide for themselves. It's you and those like you who want to force your agenda on everybody, despite what the Constitution says, through the courts. Ironic, to say the least.



Matthew and John were two of the original 12 apostles and were eye-witnesses to what happened. Mark wrote his account based on the eye-witness of another original apostle - Peter. Of course Luke was a missionary companion of Paul later on. The argument secular people make about the gospels being written "years later" doesn't really hold water.



Well that's one thing we can agree on. But I would submit to you that a reason for that is because the scriptures need to be read - and can only be understood - through both reason (don't forget that comes from God too) and faith. Secular unbelievers throw faith out altogether, and because they do so, the scriptures will always be largely "closed" to them.

Ivy, to be fairly direct, it seems you're hiding your prejudice behind your fairly articulate "defence of the constitution". Most, if not all religions (yours included) teach that homosexuality is a sin and that is the real undertone of your comments, I feel. And the real issue is that most religions feel the need, indeed are commanded, to spread their particular line of faith to anyone that'll listen, and also to most that don't want to. This itself is inherently wrong and offensive to a lot of people. What makes it more offensive is that the faith doctrine is then mixed in with the constitution, as if that gives it some vicarious credibility.

Scriptures can only truly be understood if you have faith?? Thats a great get out clause! Ill right that on my next tax return! I must have not understood correctly ( because of my lack of faith), the teachings of the LDS doctrine that, until relatively recently, being black was a genuine curse from god. Its obviously easy to go on and on with many other examples across all religions which are usually explained away as being "taken out of context" or "misinterpreted" but its all wearing a bit thin and makes anyone else not of faith fairly reasonably suspicious about what other thoughts and aspirations religion has in store for us all.

How can anyone of faith be taken seriously to preach on civil rights, aside from the crazy doctrines? Yes, you speak eloquently and put forward some reasoned points but then go on to mention as some sort of proof "eye witnesses" who were present during some fairly dubious events -which even most religions cant even agree on- over 2000 years ago as if you've just spoken to them-it just removes all credibility. Even in todays age of instant media communication, I wouldn't base my entire judgment of a situation on an eye witness statement, let alone let it influence my entire life and persuade me to tell everyone else I was right because of it.

Fergie, just a question for you. I think you said previously that you're an atheist. If that's correct, on what basis do you claim that Ivy's spreading his faith, even for people who don't want to hear it, "inherently wrong"? Just curious.

Nice post

Its inherently wrong for people of faith (not Ivy in particular) to tell people what to eat, what to wear, who they can and can't have sex with (and in what position), to mutilate children's genitals and so on and on....all based on miracles that are just fairytales used to scare children. The endgame always is to accuse anyone who wont be coerced into believing as not being as moral as someone with faith...which is frankly, insulting. Well...

Is it moral for orthodox jews to thank god every morning that they were not born a woman?
Is the muslim injunction that states anyone wishing to denounce their faith should be killed, moral?
Is it moral to tell children they will go to hell if they do wrong?
Is it moral to be told we would no know right from wrong if we were not already the property of some celestial dictator? And with that comes a demand for compulsory love
Is it moral to be told you can be convicted (by god) of thought crime at any minute of any day

Religion is almost like a celestial North Korea, except when you die you get out...not with religion we're told, thats when the real fun begins.

That is why I have a real defiance of theocracy and no real respect for those who mix their political view points with this

That's a rant showing how you hate religion, but you didn't answer the question: Why is it wrong? Why is [fill in the blank] inherently wrong?

But for you to mock the faithful by calling their beliefs "fairytales" is okay, right?

Are you telling me that my my parents, and especially my immigrant Italian grandparents, who were literally moved to tears by the beauty of religious imagery should be mocked for believing in fairytales? Or me? Or my wife and children? Have I ever mocked you?

So typical. Liberals love to call everyone else "hateful." Until you don't agree with their belief system. Then they become as hateful as anyone on the far right.

You're every bit the extremist as the people you're vilifying. You just don't know it because, like them, it's your way or the highway.

I've been avoiding weighing in because I made a vow to not partake in religious debates, because they never end well. My debates with Ivy last year became borderline ugly, and I came to the conclusion that there's no point in arguing religion with someone who believes so completely in his faith. He's entitled as much to his beliefs as I am to my lack of belief. I tried to convince myself that my goal was to inform rather than try to change people's belief system to my own, but in reality, pointing out how foolish I thought his belief system to be was my way of trying to change his mind.

I disagree with people like Ivy, but I respect him and his beliefs. That didn't always come through during our debates, but that kind of proves my first point. It's pointless to have this argument, because our stances on the topic are unwavering, and it leads to nothing but frustration, which eventually leads to flaming and name calling.

My stance: live and let live.

I'm a Christian. I do believe in God although at one point in my life I was skeptical.

I have my own views on Christianity and what I should do regarding my faith, but I don't let it offend me if others disagree or don't believe the same. Religion is tricky, so I keep it out of most conversations and debates. At the same time I couldn't care less what someone else is: Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Pastafarian, atheist, I don't care. I try to be very live and let live. My only problem is when people use their faith/non-faith to tell other what they should and should not do. This goes for anyone. Religious nuts and secular atheists included.

Yes, going in circles proved to be pointless



Probably a good idea.

I've said it a million times. Religion and politics shouldn't even be debated because no one ever changes anyone else's mind. Ever.

And with those two topics in mind (religion and politics), what threads get the ugliest here? The threads about the religious right.

Two birds with one stone. All hate from both sides. And I ain't lecturing. I'm guilty of it myself at times. But being a centrist I get it from everyone, so I'm fucked either way .

I feel you there PB. Being a centrist myself I've caught flak from both sides. It's effing ridiculous

I agree with this and with what Pizzaboy says to.

I must say though that at least this discussion seems rather calm and civil compared to what I used to see on internet; for example, when the admin takes parts in debates, chooses his "favorite" users and simply either closes the mouth to everybody who disagrees, or slanders and insults them. Here at least the forum administration lets breathe by keeping neutral in there aren't personal attacks and insults.
On some other forums, no (not organized crime ones, just others): it's really annoying to be treated like inferior just because you cross the local "favorite" users who get a "carte blanche" to insult whoever they want in the name of homosexuality (or in name of anti-homosexuality, religion, atheism, politics or whatever) and you can't even reply because the admin protects them and bans you for "harassing nice people" as he puts it.

I am religious and it's very tiresome to be constantly pointed out at a the "bad guy" or "ignorant" as if they themselves were better.

My friends are mostly statist find me too conservative, my family say I am too liberal and I am radical, can't win. In my mind I am moderate. Extreme left and extreme right really make it difficult to have a efficient government (oxymoron)



Since I am probably agnostic I could have come off that way but, not my intention.

But I didn't mean you or anybody in this thread. As I pointed out, the discussion here is ok in my opinion, I was talking about other forums where the debates were rather unfair in my opinion, due to insults and condescending attitude. I said this just to underline that, as Pizzaboy says, politics and religion are a delicate topic and can often bring to personal attacks (here it's not the case, at least yet).

I'm more than happy to leave religion completely out of this issue. It's the ones in support of gay marriage who keep bringing religion into the debate. They think if others are against gay marriage because of religion, that somehow makes their opinion on the issue meaningless or irrelevant.

However, as I keep saying, whatever reason people are against gay marriage for - religious or otherwise - doesn't matter. The issue is a Constitutional one. It's indeed a stretch to argue there is anything in the Constitution that would give the federal government the authority to usurp the rights of the individual states on this matter. That's what it all boils down to. But it seems some gay marriage supporters on this site prefer to cloud the issue by bringing religion and other things into it.

PB, you got slightly offended by my comment and I should really, for the sake of clarity, offer an explanation to you, and everyone possibly offended.

However any individual finds hope, comfort etc is none of my business, if it happens to be through religion, then cool, Ive no issue with ANY personal beliefs, as long as they don't interupt my life. I know many people with a religious faith who are not interested in "spreading the word" and theres no issue at all.

I do get annoyed, however, when those personal beliefs (only beliefs remember) are impressed on others as "the truth" and the subsequent (and usually embarrassed) threats of eternal torture follow. And thats the real issue...religion, by its very nature and doctrines demands its membership to spread the word....why?? Because those that dont believe are morally inept sinners who need saved or punished. Whilst religion has recently had to recant some disgusting and horrific views on woman, ethnic minorities and gays (to name but a few) all specifically formed from highly dubious stories (not fairy!), legend and myths, it still always tries, and struggles, to maintain the higher moral ground. At least stories and myths can be usually "misinterpreted" and somewhat awkwardly excused (although thats wearing thin now) however, actual events with (hold your breath) "eye witness accounts", as we're assured most of the bible is, simply can't be. Why would god wait (at minimum) 100,000 years, witnessing all the death, destruction, struggle and wars by our earliest ancestors, then after 98,000 years or so, decide he will intervene? And only then by placing a man in a non-descript village in bronze age palestine who would then spread his message- by word of mouth- around the world. Why not china for instance, where people were already so advanced as to have been writing books.....seems a little risky. But again, people of faith use the trump card, God knew....

Take the Hitchens test and "Name one ethical statement made, or action performed, by a believer, that could not have been uttered or done by a non-believer".

The flip side, name as many horrific deeds as you like carried out in the name of religion which couldnt/wouldnt be done by a non-believer. As an example, in Iran its illegal to execute a virgin for a crime, because of their religious beliefs. So the Iranian National guard will regularly and normally, carry out rape, then execute the woman...totally barbaric....theres many, many more Im sure anyone could think of.

To desribe any atheiest as an "extremist" is just unfair and wrong, its an embarrising word which naturally attaches itself to religion. you'll never hear of bombings, beheadings, rapes, mutilatiions, threats, wars, instructions of any kind or crime carried out in the name of atheism. Why? Because there's no need to "spread the word", its obvious and without any insecurity to the majority - evidence and reason are the only tools required.

People are correct when they say you should never debate religion-religion is fresh air - invisible and open to any interpretation, just a shame it cant be used only for what it really excels at, personal, private comfort. To mix in politics with the private intention of debasing any civil right cause completely shameful and embarrising to most of those with a privately held faith.

Ivy, you are obviously entirely against gay marriage because of your religious beliefs, so you must realise that to try and put forward an unbiased, constitutional argument against it, might sometimes be met with some scepticism by others.

Im not stamping my feet and lighting a match in favour of it, but "live and let live"?

well, religion being discussed on a forum is always war, but, I can understand others viewpoints. however I am a Christian and a devout believer in the lord jesus Christ. but. I never argue the point.

my belief is really a simple one, my church. my bible. my religion, is everything jesus Christ ever said. Ive made myself a little book of everything he ever said, and he is my man. as far as non- believers go who cares about them.

Christianity is a religion based on faith, you either accept it on faith or not. I do. end of story.

Binnie, I respect everything you just said

thank you fergie.

If a state has a population of 100 people, 75 of those people have a belief that marriage is this or that and life should be lived one way, they don't have a right to vote and force the remaining 25 to live according to what they believe. You(just the word I am using not you) do not have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their life just because you do not feel they have legitimate rights(you can marry whoever you want they can marry whoever they want, those are equal rights). The federal government can step is when one group wants to restrict (based on religion, you can say it has nothing to do with it but lets not kid ourselves) individual liberty.

Religion is not used to cloud the subject it is the basis for why people are against it. A state forcing the religious beliefs of part the constituents on how life should be lived is not allowed. People are forcing a religious agenda on people they hide behind the fact that the constitution does not say; "Marriage is between two consenting adults, opposite sex or same sex."

The Constitution didn't explicitly say "Men and women are allowed to vote." people used that as an excuse to prohibit women from voting. When left up to the state for example New Jersey constitution stated only white male citizens over the age of 21 could vote. Were they stretching "Equal protection under that law" with the Nineteenth Amendment? Those darn activist judges want to give the same rights as everyone else.

The Constitution never said "No man, women or child can be slaves." If left to the States we would still have slavery. Anti abolitionist actually used the Bible as justification for slavery(kind of similar on how the Bible is used to hold "other" people down), just an example of how bigotry hides behind religion and then used to influence law. I can not believe those activists judges allowed the Thirteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment to boot.

Well to be fair a number of atheists regimes have committed horrendous acts:
Mao Tse-tung
V.I. Lenin and Joseph Stalin
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge
Ho Chi Min
Adolf Hitler (he said he was Catholic but that's a load of bull)
Suharto in Indonesia



Exactly

Well said Dude, religion (and its weird ongoing obsession with strangers sex lives), is the basis of this particular political argument. There's no clouding of any issue, its simply a bigoted view hidden behind the constitution, hidden behind religion.

I think theres a few broken windows in glass houses that need repaired....

Previous point Dude, Your right, but every one had fairly extreme views running, at best, tandem with atheism, I don't think anyone would say atheism was the basis of their crimes

Yeah that is true, good point.

Although, admittedly, Im no expert on each of them...

Now, if that were my religious belief you had just dared to questioned, 8 or 9 increasingly aggressive posts would have been exchanged and one or both of us would have been suspended...! THATS the difference between atheism and religion...

Fergie, you go around mocking and making all sorts of claims against "religion" (in quotes because each religion is different), yet make special pleading when it comes to your own belief system. Craig Stephen Hicks of North Carolina just murdered a young Muslim couple that just got married and the sister of the bride. He is a militant atheist who strongly believes in mocking all beliefs that aren't his, a la Richard Dawkins. What about Communist governments? They are and were atheist and persecute religious believers. The Soviet Union even had a group called League of Militant Atheists that not only engaged in propaganda, but aided the government in murdering priests and other believers. They also used to mock believers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists. I suggest you read "The Black Book of Communism" and "Democide" for just how many atrocities were committed in the name of atheism. Or read "Persecuted for Christ" by Richard Wurmbrand who describes horrific torture that he personally experienced and witnessed. The idea the "we atheists" don't do bad things is just the "no true Scotsman" fallacy (I didn't name this fallacy, so no insult to Scotsmen LOL).

Again, you claim that it's wrong for religious people to evangelize, but it's somehow okay for you to mock and make a lot of assertions without evidence. Mockery appears to be the atheistic form of evangelism, a case of a double-standard while you won't respond to the question on why it is wrong for religious people to evangelize, other than you not liking it.

Certainly something to be said for that. People don't like having their beliefs critiqued, which is fair. Trying to show someone an alternative way to look at something is a dangerous game to play.

Faithful, Im honestly not mocking religion, or at least trying not to. Ive said nearly a dozen times now, I completely get the personal/private faith advantage, its the wider, mainstream rape and abuse of that ideal, and subsequent power, that disgusts me.

1st example of some random madman...1 case proves your point? Ill give you a1000 more examples of people who are religious/argueably sane.

2nd point, Im not a communist! Your mixing ideals up, not for the first time ive experienced that in this conversation.. (No offence taken with the scots comment btw!)

I try not to mock, ok I do slightly, but to say I do that without evidence somehow places religion in the camp of having proved something. The comfort I got at 2-8 years old around Christmas when I knew santa was coming was amazing...be good and this is your reward, be bad and this is what will happen...its smalltown religion. I suppose this just carries on with religion.

My base point is that you cant give someone, or a group of people, power who "believe" in scriptures etc and the doodlings of how ever many people throughout the ages who changed its meaning on a whim..

You don't have to defend anything to me. Just be consistent, and I'll just agree to disagree where applicable.


I'm Catholic. Catholics don't proselytize, ring doorbells or hand out literature at the airport.

You see, I agree that people shouldn't try to convert other people. But then you post this, which tells me that you're not above trying to spread the word of Atheism:


Just asking me to "take the test" is trying to change my position. Would you take a test on the words of Christ or Moses?

So let's not pretend that it's all one way. There are Atheist fanatics in this world. Even the Dude has acknowledged as much. And Hitchens was one of them. That he conned a gazillion "followers" into buying his books and "spreading the word" only strengthens my argument.

It's not like his book proceeds went to charity. He was a snake oil salesman in the same vein as Right Wing preachers who put out three books a year.

I, as a non-believer, am willing to listen and respect some religious views and understand the importance of personal faith and the comfort it brings, Ive said so in nearly every single post on this thread...show me a religious person who would afford me the same compromise?

You see, I write out a thoughtful post, and you come back with this. You just lumped EVERY religious person in this world into the same mold. Including me.

I don't give a fuck if you believe or not, which affords you the very compromise which you just implied that I wasn't willing to give you.

PB, I just posted there before I read yours...again, Ive been consistent in personal faith throughout.

Maybe you don't, but a fair amount of religions who are apparently correct do proselytize, and they tell everyone about it

Im not trying to convert you, just make you think-my ultimate goal isn't to convert you to some light or whatever else and Ive no derogatory opinion of you because you believe, flip it round and most believers feel the opposite

Dude mentioned some dictators, and he is correct they were atheists, but you cant be gleeful about that? We both agreed straight after it?

Why wouldn't Hitchens sell his books for profit? He wrote around a dozen and a few were based on religion. I do understand it cant be nice to think he's writing that about your belief but they are all a fair retort to religion, you should read them PB-I was forced into RE classes when I was young so you could at least agreeably read a Hitchens book!

Re your last post, THATS what happens with religion, you get lumped in with all the rest amongst non believers-I made the point in some other thread that gay people must be pissed off being lumped in with the "LBGT" acronym.

Ill say it once again, Ive no issue with you and everyone who has a private faith-as soon as we discuss it though, it suddenly becomes a threat. Dude came back with some dictator names and I could've got completely pissed off because he's somehow insulted my belief, but no, we discuss and move on..

Faith is just that, faith, hope...and I suppose it is susceptible to more insecurity than atheism which relies on actual evidence. I cant understand basing my life and beliefs on a "wing and a prayer" but we all sometimes need a bit of hope I suppose and life would be boring if all we relied on was evidence...is that a compromise???

No reason at all. He was a capitalist. Just like the televangelists who sell a billion religious books a year. Nothing wrong with capitalism. My point was, in that regard he was no different than they are. In it for the money.


Why would a believer want a retort to his belief system? It's anathema to the entire point. I feel I'm right, and I don't shove it down anyone's throat.

Well, we're all capatilists by that definition

Well, thats the main, HUGE point youve just made ..a believer never wants or will ever accept a retort to his/her belief, just simply because it is a belief, which, to some extent, controls your personality etc. To have that questioned sets anyones mind in a spin. But its about exploring how religion, NOT, just one strand of its beliefs, fit it with society. We cant decide whos right, so everyone needs a place apparently...

Religion is what it is, every believes in essentially the same thing and argue amongst each other for righteousness, land, money, popularity etc...Again, THATS what pisses me off, why not just be private, like most other people who do what they do..

Re-read your first point, and sorry, I picked it up wrong PB. Yes, he made money from his few books based on religion, but he wrote far, far, more on other subjects. He wasn't a Dawkins who basically writes about evolution these day, he was honestly a great writer, especially on the US constitution (positively), you would like him I reckon...

First, "personal/private faith advantage" -- what does that mean? People who don't talk about their beliefs? Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Second, it's not a "random madman," but a very recent example. I'm sure you can give examples of "religious people" doing bad things, especially with so many different religions. I can also give other examples. The point is this was in response to your fallacy of special pleading that exempted atheists from evildoing while everyone else is apparently guilty of it.

Third, I never said you were a Communist. Nevertheless it is true that Communism is atheistic. Marx, Engels and Lenin were all atheists. So was Stalin, Mao, Ceau&#537;escu, Kim Il whoever of North Korea, Castro, Pol Pot, the French Revolutionary leaders, Calles of Mexico, etc. It is also true that all of these regimes persecuted Christians and committed atrocities. So you cannot honestly say that atheism and atheists are innocent of genocide and other heinous crimes.

Fourth, it's also false to assert that no religion has evidence for its beliefs. We can discuss that on another thread. By the way, faith means "trust" as well as a synonym for religious belief, and trust is placed on fact and credibility. Maybe some religions or beliefs have "blind faith," but that doesn't mean that all do. That's a hasty generalization and it assumes facts not in evidence. On the other hand, I can claim that it takes more faith, more blind faith, to be an atheist. Atheists assume the existence of truth, but if their thoughts are just random electrochemical reactions then it is impossible to know if their thoughts are accurate or anything else for that matter.

Fifth, as for the mockery that you admit that you do, mockery breeds contempt, and contempt can breed hostility. I prefer to have a friendly dialogue. I may challenge your beliefs, but mockery doesn't make friends with anyone. Try bringing that mockery to a mosque and see what happens.

Faithfull, Ive said it perhaps too many times now...personal faith is great, when it turns into a need to impress it on everybody, its a problem.

2nd point, random DOESNT mean recent. And he is a lone madman...youre not honestly saying your worried by random atheist attacks?

Technically, no I cant, but the evil dictators you mention didn't base their genocide on religion, again, you honestly think atheism causes violence?

You are "taking the piss"!!! Faithfull, you honestly think science is based on an "assumption of truth"? Id like you to tell me that if you ever are unlucky enough to have a major op (I never had, incase you draw conclusions)

Lastly, Yes, just try mocking the wrong religion.....you'll see... (Undertone of a threat).....

Faithfull, if I was doing bad, your having a nightmare just now.....

I maybe didn't answer your first point clearly enough FF, personal/private faith is fairly self explanatory, you believe, like Binnie said earlier, in jesus and, Ill paraphrase slightly (correct me if Im wrong Binnie), him being your saviour etc and if you don't believe well you can piss off basically. I think thats great, Binnie has his belief, I have mine, and we are fine. Hes not adding, btw, all gays should not marry, blacks are cursed, woman are 2nd class citizens to back up some some skewed politically fantasy. yes, I am throwing together a few religions, but its hard to keep up with all the different prejudices the heads of these religions think are appropriate.

fergie, if you have a problem with Ivy sharing his beliefs or "impress it on everybody" as you put it, why is it okay for YOU to do it?

No, I'm not worried about random atheist attacks, nor am I worried about random Christian attacks, random Jewish attacks, random Buddhist attacks, random Mormon attacks, random Jehovah's Witness attacks, etc. But when it comes to religious persecution in the world today, the two primary religions (which we can define here as "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance" or as our "ultimate concern") that are most responsible are Islam and atheism.

I'm "taking the piss"? I had to look that one up since we don't say that in the USA. It means to mock or make fun of something. No, I wasn't taking the piss as you say. Yes, science is based on truth. It's called rational empiricism, and its foundation is mathematics and beyond that the laws of logic, which in turn are derived from God's nature. If science wasn't based on truth then what may be true one day could be false the next and back. Without consistency it would come to a standstill. What do you think science rests on? Falsehood? Chaos? It rests on the Law of Identity and the Law of Noncontradiction.

As for unpleasant things that religious people believe, atheists aren't immune to racism, pedophilia, and all kinds of bad things. I once worked with an atheist Neo-Nazi who hated blacks, Jews and Christians, so whatever ad hominen attack you want to throw out, it can be thrown back right at you.

On the last one, that wasn't my threat, but a reality in today's world. Why do you think the Danish and French cartoonists were killed? It's because they mocked Islam. I'm not saying that they deserved to be killed so don't go there, but there is a reason why they were killed. They just thought they could joke and mock without consequences. It looks like you think that making fun or "taking the piss" of other people's beliefs is big joke, but for others it's seriously deadly. If there's a good reason NOT to mock the beliefs of others, it's that. Another reason is that it's offensive and people won't take you seriously. If you want to change people's minds it won't happen by insulting them or their beliefs.

Exactly. Ivy imposes his will on everybody. Buy it's okay for Fergie to mock my faith in a "fairytale."

Ok, we should maybe just park it and move on eh....

I said that seven pages ago, kiddo .

Yes I know, and you were right

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in"...!

You don't have to take my word for it. Read the Constitution. Unless somebody with an agenda wants to project something onto it, there's nothing that supports the courts taking the gay marriage issue out of the hands of the individual states. But you choose to keep dancing around that issue by bringing up religion.



Guys like Hitchens and Dawkins are as phony as they come. What kind of true "atheist" spends their whole life fighting against something they claim to believe doesn't even exist? Their actions undermine their professed non-belief. And, ironically enough, these so called atheists are often more intolerant and quick to push their non-belief than most religious people do their faith. In any event, like I said, Hitchens is singing a different tune now. As will Dawkins when he passes on.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. - Psalms 14:1

What's the worst than can happen? Organization recognized by the state as a church loses tax status?

To give you just one example, we've seen cases where Christian wedding photographers have been sued by a gay couple for not taking their business since it was obviously against their personal beliefs. Of course, these gay couples had plenty of choices of photographers who would take their business but it really wasn't about that, was it? No, it's about forcing their agenda on everyone else and to hell with their beliefs or their freedom. Ironic, to say the least.

Another example, the Catholic Church had to stop it's involvement in adoptions because it wouldn't adopt children out to gay couples.

I could go on. Needless to say, there will no doubt continue to be other examples as so called "gay rights," which are not Constitutional, trample over people's religious rights - which are Constitutionally protected.

Money talks, Ivy.


Well within the right of ANY religious body to adhere to whatever their rules are and suffer whatever legal or financial repercussion comes with it. The thing is, there are quite a few financial benefits to churches here. Gay lobby is not made up of idiots (the opposite actually) and they are just playing a game of chicken with certain religious groups and see if they buckle once money gets involved. Most groups surely will,eventually.

I'd be interested in the tactics that gay lobby is using in countries where religious organizations don't enjoy tax exemptions.

Gays are using the laws on the books in the United States Code,and the Amendments that ironically were either used or created when non Protestant groups were fighting against discrimination against the religious mainstream of America.

Constitution is the framework for the country but the nuts and bolts of the law are the U.S.C. and the Amendments to the Constitution.

Indiana governor signs Religious Freedom Restoration Act


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fQ5U6M6BlU

When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong-part 33

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/03/29/adam-smith-chick-fil-a-video-memoir/70629290/

NEWSER) – Things haven't gone too well for the former CFO who criticized Chick-fil-A in a video he posted on YouTube.

Unable to find lasting work, 37-year-old Adam Smith is living on food stamps with his wife and four kids in the RV they call home, he tells ABC News. "I think people are scared," Smith says of potential employers. "I think people are scared that it could happen again."

Back in the summer of 2012, as thousands of people were opposing Chick-fil-A's stance on gays, Smith rolled into a Chick-fil-A drive-thru for a free glass of water and slammed the female attendant: "Chick-fil-A is a hateful corporation," Smith told her as the filmed the exchange. "I don't know how you live with yourself and work here. I don't understand it."

Smith posted the video before returning to work at Vante, a Tucson-based medical manufacturer — and the proverbial you-know-what had hit the fan by the time he got there.

The receptionist told him "the voicemail is completely full, and it's full of bomb threats," he says. Fired that day, Smith lost his $200,000 salary and more than $1 million in stock options. He and his family moved to Portland, where he got a CFO job, but lost it two weeks later when they realized who he was.

He says he has since been honest in interviews, but companies have been too wary of fallout to hire him. "I don't regret the stand I took, but I regret… the way I talked to her," an emotional Smith says of the worker.

The interview coincides with his recent digital release of a memoir, A Million Dollar Cup of Water (a paperback version is out April 21), which chronicles his professional collapse and years of soul-searching. It's not faring so well on Amazon, which Smith addressed on the site on Friday. "Regarding the many 1-star ratings my book has received today and yesterday, I would like to note that I have only sold 17 digital copies thus far, yet there are 23 1-star ratings on my book. This fascinates me! LOL!

Hard to feel sympathy for such a jackass. And he lost his job by being on the wrong side of the argument too. What a pathetic story.

I saw the video that got him canned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFdPBtxzT6k

He's a fool. Berating a CASHIER of restaurant chain because you disagree with the comments/views of the CEO is pointless. He was grandstanding and being a bully. F him.
I wonder where all the people that he was trying to endear himself to are, now that he's down and out.

*When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong was a series of sketches from the Chappelle show...this story is just a real life version of one of those skits.

Even though I don't agree with him I feel bad for this guy. I really don't think people should lose their livelihood for a lapse in judgment. People deserve a second chance.