Do you eat bacon or fish? Do you think slavery is wrong? Do you think men should have only one wife at a time? Do you disagree with the notion that divorce is a sin? Do you think it's OK to make an offering that does not include salt? Do you think it's wrong to stone prostitutes to death?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, then we're in the same boat, my friend.
Glad she won. Trying to ram these ideas down our throats is wrong and the Colorado activist judges need to return to law school to re-learn their business.
Glenn: Trying to stop gay marriage would be forcing (potentially) religious beliefs on some people, BUT, at the same time, if a congregation/church does NOT want to honor gay marriage in their congregation, they also should NOT be forced to do so! There are plenty of legal windows for gay marriage. I also love it how Muslims would NEVER be required to "go against THEIR religious beliefs!"
Christians are expendable---even though the nation was founded (like it or not, revisionists) on Judeo/Christian principles and laws.
Although I agree with your observation about the expendability of Christians versus the impregnable position of followers of mohammad in our current bizzaro world, does it not make one wonder why thousands of years of social norms have, within the past two decades been cashiered willy-nilly? Homosexuality has existed for millenia, no doubt, but at no time in history did such unions ever attain the status of marriage. I look in vain for a single society that has recognized homosexual copulation as equivalent to or legally constituting a marriage. Yet we are now to believe that failing to grant such recognition somehow is "... forcing... religious beliefs on some people..."? By way of analogy, murder has never been regarded as legally permissible, but by the same logic, would you deem that also to be "... forcing... religious beliefs on some people..." because it is also proscribed by Christianity? Or islam? Or Judaism? We have been brainwashed to accept homosexual "marriage" by the clever substitution of "gay rights" into the place of "civil rights" and the substitution of sexual deviancy for the mere accident of skin color. Once one accepts sexual deviancy as having a protected legal status, as has been done in this country, there is no logical reason to oppose compelling the same outcome for any other deviancy, as we are now witnessing in the "minor attracted person" phenomenon. If trends continue, it will not be much longer before that also becomes a legally protected category, mark my words.
Your comments are much clearer than mine for sure! What I meant was that while the US was founded on having no "official religion," Christianity, Judaism and Islam do NOT promote/allow homosexuality. But, if we say NO to gay marriage, I was just postulating that the NO is from a religious tenet! Therefore, according to the Founding Fathers, we must accept gay marriage in principle. (I think!) But, offshoots like pedophilia, bestiality et al. should never be legal, regardless of religious beliefs. Those prohibitions are literally to protect our civilization. Like Glenn has stated, I don't care who sleeps with whom UNLESS the participants are below the legal age of consent, and then, what is to be done if BOTH are--i.e. teens having sex when they are both under 16---which I have been told happens a lot. (Never did when I was a teen in the 1960s as far as I knew, however.) It would seem to be the easiest way to have a marriage would be to call everything a "Civil Union," The ONLY reason for mentioning marriage is a legal one so that the govt, can tax people differently. Therefore, marriage or gay marriage should be allowed or disallowed according to each congregation, NOT forced on a denomination by some "higher denominational powers!" Which goes back to the baker being absolved of her choices for her cake design. Finally, while gay men will tell you it goes back thousands of years, I'm not so sure of the equivalency today. At least my undergrad courses, most of which I thought not necessary to what I wanted to major in, I was taught that men considered themselves superior mentally, and intimacy was not able to be felt with a woman, even though women/wives/concubines etc., were needed to keep the human race moving. I was taught that the ancient Greeks had two men to a foxhole, as they would keep each other's backs better if they "were close." Also I think the ancient Olympics were held with the participants in the nude. I postulate that one cannot totally draw conclusions from "what has been done for thousands of years" and then say it is legitimate today for totally different reasons. SO, I also am happy that the baker was vindicated and the lower courts/judges were slapped down---and I hope these actions continue. Sorry to be confusing!
I think there's a logical fallacy in your argument, Steve, though I'm not enough of a logician to label it .
You suggest that legalizing gay marriage is like legalizing murder, because in all of history in all cultures, neither have ever been legalized. But you could say just as well that legalizing gay marriage is like abolishing slavery. In practically all cultures in all of history, slavery was allowed and gay marriage was not. Ergo, if we don't legalize gay marriage then we need to reinstitute slavery.
Your point about deviancy is a different point. People can argue about what constitutes deviancy, but there's no logical fallacy with that particular point
I suspect that the courts in Colorado would have upheld the religious and free speech rights of a gay church that was forced by the somehow right wing Colorado Ministry of Truth and Acceptable Thinking to hire a Fundamentalist brimstone and fire pastor.
It's amazing to me that the left is willing to bend the law, ignore the Constitution, etc. to reach a short term objective, while at the same time setting precedent that can be used to defeat their agenda in the long run. There are only assumptions we can logically make about their behavior either that they are indeed totalitarians, who intend at some point to take enough power to always control the outcome of court cases as well as elections... or that they just don't plan or think.
Do you eat bacon or fish? Do you think slavery is wrong? Do you think men should have only one wife at a time? Do you disagree with the notion that divorce is a sin? Do you think it's OK to make an offering that does not include salt? Do you think it's wrong to stone prostitutes to death?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, then we're in the same boat, my friend.
You're blocked.
Bingo!
Glad to hear it. I wish the lady who didn't want to make the gender transition cake would have won.
The longer I practice law, the less respect I have for judges.
Glad she won. Trying to ram these ideas down our throats is wrong and the Colorado activist judges need to return to law school to re-learn their business.
Glenn: Trying to stop gay marriage would be forcing (potentially) religious beliefs on some people, BUT, at the same time, if a congregation/church does NOT want to honor gay marriage in their congregation, they also should NOT be forced to do so! There are plenty of legal windows for gay marriage. I also love it how Muslims would NEVER be required to "go against THEIR religious beliefs!"
Christians are expendable---even though the nation was founded (like it or not, revisionists) on Judeo/Christian principles and laws.
Although I agree with your observation about the expendability of Christians versus the impregnable position of followers of mohammad in our current bizzaro world, does it not make one wonder why thousands of years of social norms have, within the past two decades been cashiered willy-nilly? Homosexuality has existed for millenia, no doubt, but at no time in history did such unions ever attain the status of marriage. I look in vain for a single society that has recognized homosexual copulation as equivalent to or legally constituting a marriage. Yet we are now to believe that failing to grant such recognition somehow is "... forcing... religious beliefs on some people..."? By way of analogy, murder has never been regarded as legally permissible, but by the same logic, would you deem that also to be "... forcing... religious beliefs on some people..." because it is also proscribed by Christianity? Or islam? Or Judaism? We have been brainwashed to accept homosexual "marriage" by the clever substitution of "gay rights" into the place of "civil rights" and the substitution of sexual deviancy for the mere accident of skin color. Once one accepts sexual deviancy as having a protected legal status, as has been done in this country, there is no logical reason to oppose compelling the same outcome for any other deviancy, as we are now witnessing in the "minor attracted person" phenomenon. If trends continue, it will not be much longer before that also becomes a legally protected category, mark my words.
Your comments are much clearer than mine for sure! What I meant was that while the US was founded on having no "official religion," Christianity, Judaism and Islam do NOT promote/allow homosexuality. But, if we say NO to gay marriage, I was just postulating that the NO is from a religious tenet! Therefore, according to the Founding Fathers, we must accept gay marriage in principle. (I think!) But, offshoots like pedophilia, bestiality et al. should never be legal, regardless of religious beliefs. Those prohibitions are literally to protect our civilization. Like Glenn has stated, I don't care who sleeps with whom UNLESS the participants are below the legal age of consent, and then, what is to be done if BOTH are--i.e. teens having sex when they are both under 16---which I have been told happens a lot. (Never did when I was a teen in the 1960s as far as I knew, however.) It would seem to be the easiest way to have a marriage would be to call everything a "Civil Union," The ONLY reason for mentioning marriage is a legal one so that the govt, can tax people differently. Therefore, marriage or gay marriage should be allowed or disallowed according to each congregation, NOT forced on a denomination by some "higher denominational powers!" Which goes back to the baker being absolved of her choices for her cake design. Finally, while gay men will tell you it goes back thousands of years, I'm not so sure of the equivalency today. At least my undergrad courses, most of which I thought not necessary to what I wanted to major in, I was taught that men considered themselves superior mentally, and intimacy was not able to be felt with a woman, even though women/wives/concubines etc., were needed to keep the human race moving. I was taught that the ancient Greeks had two men to a foxhole, as they would keep each other's backs better if they "were close." Also I think the ancient Olympics were held with the participants in the nude. I postulate that one cannot totally draw conclusions from "what has been done for thousands of years" and then say it is legitimate today for totally different reasons. SO, I also am happy that the baker was vindicated and the lower courts/judges were slapped down---and I hope these actions continue. Sorry to be confusing!
I think there's a logical fallacy in your argument, Steve, though I'm not enough of a logician to label it .
You suggest that legalizing gay marriage is like legalizing murder, because in all of history in all cultures, neither have ever been legalized. But you could say just as well that legalizing gay marriage is like abolishing slavery. In practically all cultures in all of history, slavery was allowed and gay marriage was not. Ergo, if we don't legalize gay marriage then we need to reinstitute slavery.
Your point about deviancy is a different point. People can argue about what constitutes deviancy, but there's no logical fallacy with that particular point
A good ruling.
I suspect that the courts in Colorado would have upheld the religious and free speech rights of a gay church that was forced by the somehow right wing Colorado Ministry of Truth and Acceptable Thinking to hire a Fundamentalist brimstone and fire pastor.
It's amazing to me that the left is willing to bend the law, ignore the Constitution, etc. to reach a short term objective, while at the same time setting precedent that can be used to defeat their agenda in the long run. There are only assumptions we can logically make about their behavior either that they are indeed totalitarians, who intend at some point to take enough power to always control the outcome of court cases as well as elections... or that they just don't plan or think.