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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As I posted above, we're already seeing the bogus "rights" of gays affecting the actual Constitutional rights of others.
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"
LOL! Spoken like a true liberal. Looking to the United Nations rather than the Constitution (which what this is all about).
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
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.
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
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."
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
Hitchens and Dawkins? Really? Rest assured, Hitchens is singing a different tune now, as will Dawkins when he passes on.
