Marriage and sexuality

[Autodidact]

I have already stated, the national debate has the potential to affect religious freedoms. So, it is very much important to me.

How can a debate affect your religious freedom? And why on earth would letting me and V get married affect your religious freedom? It's not like we're trying to prohibit you from getting married or trying to invalidate your marriage. It's not like we're even trying to change or limit or do anything whatsoever to your religion. Claiming to protect your own freedom from something that isn't threatening it, you're in fact limiting ours.

 

[madhatter85]

Religious freedom should be ignored when bigots apply their religion to block common decency.

So Religious freedom doesn't matter when you don't care? I see your position quite clearly.

I'm not telling anyone whom they can or cannot love or live with or express themselves however they feel.

All I'm saying is that marriage as defined by the Supreme Court is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Homosexual behavior is not and therefore we are not required to provide marital benefits to those who chose to live that lifestyle.

 

[madhatter85]

Demanding that the state denies equal civil rights to a minority group you happen to hate is not a religious freedom. The state is not a religious institution. If your church wants to discriminate against minorities, go nuts. Anyone who doesn't like it can simply decline to join your nutty little cult. The citizens of your nation, however, do not have that luxury, so the state needs to consider more than your twisted ideology or chaos will ensue.

see you keep framing marriage as a right however it is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the government to those eligible.

 

[madhatter85]

Does this include secual marriages that gives the exact same rights and benifits as religious ones? Because there is no excuse for secular ones not to allow two people of the same sex to marry.

Because there is no current distinction between them, there is a very big potential that this will do harm to religious freedom in our country.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

I have already stated, the national debate has the potential to affect religious freedoms. So, it is very much important to me.

So allowing gay's to marry will have an adverse affect on your religious freedom?

I may have missed that posting would you mind explaining how this would be so?

 

[enchanted_one1975]

madhatter is grasping at straws...has been for days

 

[madhatter85]

So allowing gay's to marry will have an adverse affect on your religious freedom?

I may have missed that posting would you mind explaining how this would be so?

Religious Freedom - LDS Newsroom

 

[madhatter85]

madhatter is grasping at straws...has been for days

actually it is the other way around. I am not the one resorting to mockery and personal attacks.

Slander is one of the biggest evidences that the opposition is fearful of you.

 

[ragordon168]

So Religious freedom doesn't matter when you don't care? I see your position quite clearly.

I'm not telling anyone whom they can or cannot love or live with or express themselves however they feel.

All I'm saying is that marriage as defined by the Supreme Court is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Homosexual behavior is not and therefore we are not required to provide marital benefits to those who chose to live that lifestyle.

so change the supreme court ruling so that freedom of sexualality and the right to equal marriage regardless of race,creed,orientation,etc. is essential to the very existence of a fair and just system of human life.

all men are equal...exept the ones who i dont happen to agree with?

see you keep framing marriage as a right however it is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the government to those eligible.

why should an elected politician (who you might have helped put in office) have the right to say whether or not you can have freedom of choice - which i'm sure is protected somewhere in the constitution.

lets lay it out simply.

man A = straight
man B = gay

all men are equal
=> man A = man B
=> rights of man A = rights of man B

if man A is straight he has the right to marriage but man B, who is gay does not. this violates the 1st rule of that equation "all men are equal" and doesnt work

edit. you say its a privlige but what do you have to be to earn the privilige? be 'normal'? be christian? be rich? a privilige cannot be a decent system by which to base an institution like marriage

 

[enchanted_one1975]

actually it is the other way around. I am not the one resorting to mockery and personal attacks.

Slander is one of the biggest evidences that the opposition is fearful of you.

I am mocking now because you are quoted in some of my posts? Or do you not know what it means to mock someone? You are the only one attacking someone. You are trying to put your prejudiced views into my bedroom where they don't belong. Or is it a personal attack because I compared your prejudiced argument against race and that hits home with you? Awww that's too bad. If you can't choke it down don't pick up a spoon to begin with.

 

[madhatter85]

I am mocking now because you are quoted in some of my posts? Or do you not know what it means to mock someone? You are the only one attacking someone. You are trying to put your prejudiced views into my bedroom where they don't belong

This is a fallacy. you can do what you want in your bedroom. (despite the fact that you just made it only about sex with that comment) I never said you aren't entitled to behave how you wish.

I am saying that we are not required to give privileges where they are not deserved.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I am saying that we are not required to give privileges where they are not deserved.

And again, what privileges are homosexual couples asking for that we don't deserve? I'm a disabled veteran, pal...if anyone deserves any rights in this thread it is me.

 

[darkendless]

So Religious freedom doesn't matter when you don't care? I see your position quite clearly.

I'm not telling anyone whom they can or cannot love or live with or express themselves however they feel.

All I'm saying is that marriage as defined by the Supreme Court is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Homosexual behavior is not and therefore we are not required to provide marital benefits to those who chose to live that lifestyle.

What does religious freedom have to do with homosexual unions? I didn't know civil unions were religious?

You say its defined by the supreme court but you agree with it because it supports your religious beliefs. Its a shame you cannot see the injustice you support. The reason the supreme court says this is because its probably run by a bunch of intolerant christians who are idiotic enough to think that homosexuals will control the planet and cause the demise of the human race.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Religious Freedom - LDS Newsroom

" The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by an international human rights group, call for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity.http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/religious-freedom#_edn14"

" This apparently proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers."

So apparently it isn't about allowing gays to marry it's about not letting gays have the right to their religious freedoms. It's about keeping gays out of your church and not allowing them to have the same rights and privileges as you have.

Prop 8 was just a cover up for the actual of bigotry, intolerance and hatred of your church toward people who do not meet your expectations or definitions of "normal".

 

[Autodidact]

So Religious freedom doesn't matter when you don't care? I see your position quite clearly.

I'm not telling anyone whom they can or cannot love or live with or express themselves however they feel.

All I'm saying is that marriage as defined by the Supreme Court is fundamental to our very existence and survival. Homosexual behavior is not and therefore we are not required to provide marital benefits to those who chose to live that lifestyle.

You keep saying this as if it made sense. It doesn't even scan. Worse, it has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is not whether we're required to extend the right to marriage to same-sex couples, let alone the false assertion that homosexuality is a lifestyle that is chosen, it's whether that's a good idea. Since you haven't even addressed that question, in this or any other thread, you've pretty much been spinning your wheels the whole time. And if you didn't have me on ignore, you would know that, and stop wasting your time tilting at irrelevant windmills.

 

[Autodidact]

see you keep framing marriage as a right however it is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the government to those eligible.

And you keep ignoring the many decisions by the U.S. and several state supreme courts that recognize that MARRIAGE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

 

[ragordon168]

This is a fallacy. you can do what you want in your bedroom. (despite the fact that you just made it only about sex with that comment) I never said you aren't entitled to behave how you wish.

I am saying that we are not required to give privileges where they are not deserved.

lets lay it out simply.

man A = straight
man B = gay

all men are equal
=> man A = man B
=> rights of man A = rights of man B

if man A is straight he has the right to marriage but man B, who is gay does not. this violates the 1st rule of that equation "all men are equal" and doesnt work

edit. you say its a privlige but what do you have to be to earn the privilige? be 'normal'? be christian? be rich? a privilige cannot be a decent system by which to base an institution like marriage

but how do these priviliges get handed out? does a commitee sit down and discuss whether or not certain people get certain priviliges? if so how do we know this commitee isnt just going "well i dont agree with the way he lives his life so i'm going to take his priviliges away"

it cant be a variation between different groups. it has to be all or nothing. having mixed rules for different groups breaks a fundamental part of western society - all men are equal.

so i ask you this, which do you prefer everyone getting married whether straight, gay, poly, etc or nobody allowed to get married at all?

 

[Autodidact]

Because there is no current distinction between them, there is a very big potential that this will do harm to religious freedom in our country.

What on earth are you talking about? You are woefully misinformed. There is no chance, zero, of anything that any state does about same-sex marriage impacting on any church's decision to perform it. None. If that's what you're worried about, rest assured--it's not at issue.

Right now, the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian does not have to perform interracial marriage, because it violates their religious belief.

If you learned something about what we're talking about, it might alleviate your needless concern.

I also wonder who's been lying to you, same-sex marriage opponents?

 

[Autodidact]

Religious Freedom - LDS Newsroom

Wow, that's a big crock of baloney. No wonder you're confused, if that's where you're getting your information.

 

[Autodidact]

actually it is the other way around. I am not the one resorting to mockery and personal attacks.

Slander is one of the biggest evidences that the opposition is fearful of you.

Oh, that explains why you slandered me, accusing me of making wild and baseless claims, when you could not back up that accusation. You must be afraid of me.

btw, so far you've called me abnormal and defective, and I haven't started whining about it.