North Carolina Magistrate refuses to marry interracial couple.

[Sonofason]

If you are so very threatened by people living in a manner not condoned by YOUR version of religion there are plenty of third world cesspool countries that might suit you better, that jail or execute people for being gay. The rest of us don't want to live in a barbaric country that longs for the good old days of the dark ages and inquisitions.

And you are free to leave as well. Or, we can simply fight this one out with words or swords, which ever you prefer.

 

[Sonofason]

That is pretty much what Hitler said. Stalin believed he was doing right. Mussonlini, as well, thought he was doing right by bringing fascism to Italy. Osama Bin Laden believed he was on a righteous crusade, the Crusade Popes always aligned themselves with god, and even ISIS believes they are right.
We should consider what we believe to be right, but we must also consider others. If our actions would cause actual harm to another, and not just "shock" harm because they can't handle differences, then we probably shouldn't do them. But if there is no harm, and this "shock" is the only offense, in a sort of a Kantian way, then we should proceed.

Hitler was stopped. Mussolini was arrested and stopped. Stalin was killed, poisoned. They were all stopped. They're all dead. As I always say, there are consequences for our actions. We must do what we believe is right, considering all the consequences. If others should decide we are wrong to do what we choose to do, it is up to them to stop us. And that is how the world works. If you don't like what I'm saying, then stop me from saying it. Otherwise, I will continue saying and doing what I think is right. And yes, I will decide what I think is right for you as well. May the stronger of us win.

 

[Sonofason]

Well fortunately your religion no longer has an undeserved monopoly over the matter. Love wins! Ooh, that second sentence is an appeal to tradition fallacy. Haven't seen one of those in a while.

I thought as much. Good luck applying that to reality. Trying saying that if you're ever in court for one of the more serious crimes - sexual assault, murder etc - see how far you get.


It's called drawing an analogy, Son. People once argued (like you're doing now) that inter-racial marriages should be illegal and were a perversion (just like you're doing now) thus they were undeserving of legal protection.


Fair enough. Although you did already answer that question with this sentence: "Pervert the laws, and you can just about do anything you want.".

Love has nothing to do with it. I love my children. I love my dog. I love my sister. I love my mother. I love my best friends wife. I love my enemies. But I don't marry them.
Marriage is only natural between a man and a woman. You perverting that truth doesn't change how God views what you are doing. It is sin. It will always be sin. And one day, very soon, all sinners will pay for their sins.

It is you and your liberal friends perverting the laws and God's truth. So this statement has nothing to do with me. I never pervert the truth, and unlike you, I never will.

 

[Sonofason]

So if you believe it is proper to murder someone, and do that, its perfectly fine with you? The moral structure of society as a whole would, if all peoples adopted this cavalier attitude of yours, result in anarchy. It would be chaos. And you truly believe that is the right thing to do?

If I were to believe it is proper to murder someone, and if I were willing to pay the consequences for committing a murder, I would do it.

 

[Revoltingest]

As things stand, we pro-gay marriage types are winning.
Anti types don't like it, but they suffer no harm.
So everyone wins.
This is good.

 

[Sonofason]

As things stand, we pro-gay marriage types are winning.
Anti types don't like it, but they suffer no harm.
So everyone wins.
This is good.

I disagree. The pro-gay marriage types are losing a great deal. They believe they suffer no harm.

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
(Mathew 16:26)

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree. The pro-gay marriage types are losing a great deal. They believe they suffer no harm.

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
(Mathew 16:26)

Is there any objectively verifiable harm?

 

[Sonofason]

Is there any objectively verifiable harm?

Sure.
1. The fact is that homosexuals do not live as long as heterosexuals due to the health risks associated with the lifestyle, and billions of dollars are spent annually in health care for them.
2. Legalizing gay marriage in virtually heterosexual society means having the morals of the minority forced upon the majority.
3. The percentage of homosexuals in society is less than 5%, yet it is being forced upon the other 95% of society in movies, TV, literature, and politics.
4. Spiritual issues are extremely important to a vast majority of our society, and the stress imposed on religious people by forcing them to accept and/or support homosexual practice and/or intimidate them into silence harms a person's spiritual and emotional health.
5. Homosexuality is being force-fed to our youth via the education system." It is immoral, and we are indoctrinating our children with immorality.
6. Civil unions are being recognized by employers which affects co-workers, money payouts, work time, etc.
7. While it is not wrong to force morality on individuals in a society, such as in the case of rape, murder, pedophilia, and formerly homosexuality, altering morals in a society definitely causes stress. And stress is harmful to everyone and in this case, detrimental to society.
https://carm.org/gay-marriage-harm

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure.
1. The fact is that homosexuals do not live as long as heterosexuals due to the health risks associated with the lifestyle, and billions of dollars are spent annually in health care for them.

This fact isn't supported here, but let's say it's cromulent....
Consider the consequences of government prohibiting marriage for any group which doesn't live as long.
This would also affect: dwarfs, the disabled, black folk, smokers, the obese
Your criterion fails due to reductio ad absurdum.

2. Legalizing gay marriage in virtually heterosexual society means having the morals of the minority forced upon the majority.
3. The percentage of homosexuals in society is less than 5%, yet it is being forced upon the other 95% of society in movies, TV, literature, and politics.

If anti-gay marriage types aren't forced to marry same sex spouses, how is it forced upon them?

4. Spiritual issues are extremely important to a vast majority of our society, and the stress imposed on religious people by forcing them to accept and/or support homosexual practice and/or intimidate them into silence harms a person's spiritual and emotional health.

There's an easy solution here.
Any one who is spiritually harmed by gay marriages need only look away, & mind their own business.
But if you believe spiritual sensibilities should confer governmental power to ban anything offensive,
then this poses great problems....
- Whose spiritual sensibilities should prevail?
- To what extent can the potentially offended go to prevent their being offended?

Bear in mind that many could find your particular religion offensive, not just heathens, but even other religious folk.
Would you accept their prohibitions of your own traditions, beliefs & practices which don't harm anyone else?

5. Homosexuality is being force-fed to our youth via the education system." It is immoral, and we are indoctrinating our children with immorality.

Presuming this is factual, gay marriage doesn't cause it.
Moreover, it would be an educational problem rather than a legality of marriage issue.

6. Civil unions are being recognized by employers which affects co-workers, money payouts, work time, etc.

Civil unions don't hold the same legal standing, nor do they satisfy the spiritual needs of those wishing to marry.

7. While it is not wrong to force morality on individuals in a society, such as in the case of rape, murder, pedophilia, and formerly homosexuality, altering morals in a society definitely causes stress. And stress is harmful to everyone and in this case, detrimental to society.

Such stress is self imposed.
Those whose health is so damaged by awareness of gay marriage should consider therapy,
rather than expecting everyone else to alter their beliefs & behavior to suit.

Consider this in light of all the SJW university students who want speech regulation & censorship
to create a "safe space" wherein they won't feel or slighted by what others say & believe.
Are the faithful as fragile as these fragile little snowflakes who expect everyone else to cater to them?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Love has nothing to do with it. I love my children. I love my dog. I love my sister. I love my mother. I love my best friends wife. I love my enemies. But I don't marry them.

You also, presumably, don't have sex with these people. So therefore sex has nothing to do with love. That's the kind of logic you're using.

Marriage is only natural between a man and a woman. You perverting that truth doesn't change how God views what you are doing. It is sin. It will always be sin.

A sin is a crime against your god's laws. I do not worship your god; I am not beholden to his laws, I am not beholden to him. I am free of him.

And one day, very soon, all sinners will pay for their sins.

Christians have been throwing that one at people for nearly two millennia now. It has lost its edge.

It is you and your liberal friends perverting the laws and God's truth. So this statement has nothing to do with me.

I'm not doing anything. I'm neither American, nor a lawmaker. Keep trying.

I never pervert the truth, and unlike you, I never will.

Sure thing, son.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Fair enough. Although you did already answer that question with this sentence: "Pervert the laws, and you can just about do anything you want.".

I've come to the conclusion that the law is often perverse as is: banning women from voting, the permitting of slavery, war profiteering, lack of consumer protection/information laws, installing religious law and state law, and, of course, disallowing consenting adults to be wed for whatever reason (such as race or sex). Over the years, even though we occasionally falter, slip, and take a turn for the worse, we have made the laws progressively less perverse.

 

[Sonofason]

This fact isn't supported here, but let's say it's cromulent....
Let's also say that government should prohibit marriage for any group which doesn't live as long.
Then this would also apply to: dwarfs, the disabled, black folk
Your criterion fails due to reductio ad absurdum.
If anti-gay marriage types aren't forced to marry same sex spouses, how is it forced upon them?

There's an easy solution here.
Any one who is spiritually harmed by gay marriages need only look away, & mind their own business.
But if you believe spiritual sensibilities should confer governmental power to ban anything offensive,
then this poses great problems....
- Whose spiritual sensibilities should prevail?
- To what extent can the potentially offended go to prevent their being offended?
Bear in mind that many could find your particular religion offensive, not just heathens, but even other religious folk.
Would you accept their prohibitions of your own traditions, beliefs & practices which don't harm anyone else?

Whether factual or not, gay marriage doesn't cause this.
Moreover, it's an educational issue rather than a legality of marriage issue.

Civil unions don't hold the same legal standing, nor do they satisfy the spiritual needs of those wishing to marry.

Such stress is self imposed.
Those whose health is so damaged by awareness of gay marriage should consider therapy,
rather than expecting everyone else to alter their beliefs & behavior to suit.
Consider this in light of all the SJW university students who want speech regulation & censorship
to create a "safe space" wherein they won't feel insulted or slighted by what others say & believe.
Are the faithful as fragile as these fragile little snowflakes?

[/QUOTE]
You and I are on opposite sides of this issue. You see it your way. I see it my way. You will promote your way. I will promote my way. I will accept the evidence that supports my thinking, and you will accept the evidence that supports your thinking. So I will continue the course and do my best to win hearts and minds to Christ. If I should fail. So be it.

 

[Sonofason]

I've come to the conclusion that the law is often perverse as is: banning women from voting, the permitting of slavery, war profiteering, lack of consumer protection/information laws, installing religious law and state law, and, of course, disallowing consenting adults to be wed for whatever reason (such as race or sex). Over the years, even though we occasionally falter, slip, and take a turn for the worse, we have made the laws progressively less perverse.

So the law is always perverse as is? And every single change to the law is progress?
I hope you're right.

 

[Revoltingest]

You and I are on opposite sides of this issue. You see it your way. I see it my way. You will promote your way. I will promote my way. I will accept the evidence that supports my thinking, and you will accept the evidence that supports your thinking. So I will continue the course and do my best to win hearts and minds to Christ. If I should fail. So be it.

Actually, I'm not even considering any evidence about homosexuality or gay marriage.
Our fundamental difference is that you're basing your argument primarily upon one flavor
of Xianity, & therefrom reasoning what legal restrictions you'd impose upon others.
(Note that even many other Xians would also disagree with you.)

I base my position on the libertarian credo (paraphrased):
My right to swing my arms ends where Shadow Wolf's nose begins.

 

[Sonofason]

I've come to the conclusion that the law is often perverse as is: banning women from voting, the permitting of slavery, war profiteering, lack of consumer protection/information laws, installing religious law and state law, and, of course, disallowing consenting adults to be wed for whatever reason (such as race or sex). Over the years, even though we occasionally falter, slip, and take a turn for the worse, we have made the laws progressively less perverse.

Let me assume for the moment there is no God...no creator...
Tell me why woman ought not be banned from voting, or why slavery ought not be permitted?

 

[Sonofason]

Actually, I'm not even considering any evidence about homosexuality or gay marriage.
Our fundamental difference is that you're basing your argument primarily upon one flavor
of Xianity, & therefrom reasoning what legal restrictions you'd impose upon others.
(Note that even many other Xians would also disagree with you.)

I base my position on the libertarian credo (paraphrased):
My right to swing my arms ends where Shadow Wolf's nose begins.

So when an Islamic extremist murders your family, you ought have no recourse as they did no physical harm to you. You do not defend others, just yourself. Is that right?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why are people even responding to @Sonofason? It's like arguing with an Islamic State supporter. You can't reason with such people.

 

[JustWondering]

And you are free to leave as well. Or, we can simply fight this one out with words or swords, which ever you prefer.

I find it confusing that your signature says "Following Christ" yet you condone hate, violence, and murder. Do you even know what Christ taught?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I've come to the conclusion that the law is often perverse as is: banning women from voting, the permitting of slavery, war profiteering, lack of consumer protection/information laws, installing religious law and state law, and, of course, disallowing consenting adults to be wed for whatever reason (such as race or sex). Over the years, even though we occasionally falter, slip, and take a turn for the worse, we have made the laws progressively less perverse.

Good point. Using the law as a baseline for morality is not a good idea.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Why are people even responding to @Sonofason? It's like arguing with an Islamic State supporter. You can't reason with such people.

I'm an intellectual masochist.