If this is personal don't answer what is your religious affiliation? Catholic? or a denomination of Christianity? Just out of curiosity
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?
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.
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.
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
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 criteriathey 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.
I don't disagree with that at all. This has nothing to do with gay marriage affecting you.
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.
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.
LOL! Spoken like a true liberal. Looking to the United Nations rather than the Constitution (which what this is all about).
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.
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.
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).
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."
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
