Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

In response to another thread: "Gay Marriage"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Pinoy View Post
    Here we are again: Christians can not imposed their views by laws but others can. (sigh)
    Considering the fact that all laws so far written (or likely to be written) have explicitly made churches exempt (with the exception of the "public venue" laws, and that only in certain circumstances), what exactly is being imposed upon you?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
      I think you're right, CP: college has ruined me.
      I was thinking the very same thing. But I'm proud of ya, son!
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        I made absolutely no reference to religion in my post: I was making a purely secular argument.
        You made no _explicit_ religious reference. Your assertion that marriages are inferior based on the gender of the participants is guided by your religious assumptions. Under US law, you have no right to impose your religious assumptions on those who do not share your faith.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Outis View Post
          You made no _explicit_ religious reference. Your assertion that marriages are inferior based on the gender of the participants is guided by your religious assumptions. Under US law, you have no right to impose your religious assumptions on those who do not share your faith.
          I never once called them inferior. I argued that, just as copper and steel are both useful in different ways but ought not be considered interchangeable for the purposes of constructing buildings, the sort of child-oriented relationship only possible between one man and one woman who commit permanently to each other is clearly different from a loving relationship between consenting adults.
          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
            I never once called them inferior.
            I am not here to split hairs, Mr. Spartacus. Just as you never explicitly made a religious claim, no, you never explicitly said "inferior." That does not mean that the context does not exist.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Outis View Post
              I am not here to split hairs, Mr. Spartacus. Just as you never explicitly made a religious claim, no, you never explicitly said "inferior." That does not mean that the context does not exist.
              I think you have an axe to grind, and you're looking for these "slights".
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                I think you have an axe to grind, and you're looking for these "slights".
                Not an axe to grind, per se. I will admit to a bit of gloating. Probably not good for me, but we're all human.

                Since I did not ask you this question, and the two I did ask either have not had time to respond or have chosen not to respond, let me ask you. Let us assume that churches are exempted from performing marriages that are contrary to their doctrines. When marriage equality passes, what right or rights have Christians lost, if any?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Outis, check out these links. These things are happening in the States as well as Canada.

                  And I am not trying to argue by weblink, but there are too many examples to place here and it's just easier if you read them yourself.


                  http://carm.org/homosexual-persecution-of-christians

                  http://www.afajournal.org/0407_crushing_dissent.asp

                  OLYMPIA, WA, April 10, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Christian florist in Washington state could be slapped with hefty fines because she refused to provide a floral arrangement for a gay “wedding.”

                  Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed charges today in Benton County Superior Court.

                  On March 1 Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland, refused to sell flowers to Robert Ingersoll for his “marriage” to Curt Freed.

                  “He said he decided to get married, and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can't do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’" Stutzman said. She said it was the only wedding she had declined in 37 years.

                  But Ferguson said that stance violates the law.

                  “Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” Ferguson said. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”

                  The state of Washington is seeking $2,000 in fines for every reported violation, as well as a permanent injunction requiring the shop to violate its conscience or stop selling flowers for wedding ceremonies.

                  Some of her neighbors in this very liberal state agree she should be compelled to sell flowers regardless of her religion.

                  One resident told KEPR-TV, “She doesn't have the right to say no.”

                  The station reported Stutzman has received death threats after her simple testimony of faith went viral.
                  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eld...ing-to-provide
                  OTTAWA, Ontario, 27 February, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Canada’s top court has released a unanimous decision today that critics say has struck a monumental blow against freedom of speech, opinion, and religion across the country. The court ordered the defendant, a Christian pro-family activist with a reputation for intense activism, not only to pay a fine, but also to pay court costs which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

                  “It’s a bad day,” said Bill Whatcott to LifeSiteNews.com in an interview. “The ruling and the reasoning [behind it] is terrible. They actually used the concept that truth is not a defense.”

                  “It’s worse than I expected. What it means is that my life is over, as I know it. It means that the Christian Church is going to be libel for speaking the truth,” he said.

                  In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court decided that born-again Christian William Whatcott was guilty of hate speech for distributing flyers to neighborhoods in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002. While the flyers used vehement language against homosexual practices and the homosexual agenda, they did not directly attack homosexual persons. (The flyers are appended to the end of the decision linked above)

                  The Court focused on Whatcott’s main argument, namely that he loves homosexuals with a brotherly Christian love, and it is only their sexual activity that he denounces.

                  But the Supreme Court found that with regards to hate speech, the distinction between ‘sin and sinner’ no longer applies.
                  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sup...n-christian-ac

                  Canada’s governor general, the representative of Queen Elizabeth II, signed into law yesterday a controversial measure opposed by religious believers and free-speech advocates who say it will criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.

                  The bill, passed 59-11 by the Senate on Wednesday, adds sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada’s genocide and hate-crimes legislation, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

                  The House of Commons passed the bill in September, 141-110.
                  http://www.wnd.com/2004/04/24407/

                  How many examples do you need? It won't matter how many we give you, you will still believe as you do now. And you will not change my mind, nor will you change the unchanging law of God.


                  Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Outis View Post
                    I am not here to split hairs, Mr. Spartacus. Just as you never explicitly made a religious claim, no, you never explicitly said "inferior." That does not mean that the context does not exist.
                    Is copper inferior to steel? Of course not! Copper is useful for wiring in a way that steel is not; you'd be as hard pressed to make a building of only copper as you would to make it only of steel. Relationships between adults characterized by mutual love are extremely valuable-- no society can possibly function without them. The question is not whether such relationships are valuable, but whether they are valuable in exactly the same way and deserving of exactly the same legal protections, privileges, and restrictions (namely, indissolubility and monogamy) as marriages.
                    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      So, the KKK can preach hate speech, and that's protected, but Christians are not allowed to preach against homosexuality?

                      Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), and Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                        Outis, check out these links. These things are happening in the States as well as Canada.
                        Would you have objected had the florist refused service to a mixed-race couple, based on their faith? Would you have objected to fliers being handed out denouncing the "sin" of miscegenation, based on their interpretation of scriptures? Would you cheerfully allow someone to make demonstrations in your neighborhood on the evils of race-mixing, based on their religion?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                          omitted
                          As I've already stated, I'm not here to split hairs.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            So, the KKK can preach hate speech, and that's protected, but Christians are not allowed to preach against homosexuality?
                            Is the KKK allowed to preach hate speech in Canada? I very highly doubt it.

                            Yet they wrap their hate speech in their understanding of the Bible. [EDIT]

                            What is the difference?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Outis View Post
                              Mr. Poke, you are far more aware of the law than to present such a ridiculous counter-argument. There is a radical difference in circumstance between a church that opens its doors for emergency relief, and a church who has turned their activities hall into a public venue.
                              But you seem to assume that Churches are opening their doors and "venues" to ANY kind of wedding, and I don't think that's true. And your "requirement" to keep it "members only" is silly -- Mossy, though I have never met her, is my Sister in the Lord, and is welcome to come to my Church and participate in our activities, to receive Communion...

                              Indeed, the "public venue" laws would not apply even to a church that had only opened its activities hall to other faith-related functions. In such a circumstance, they would still fall within the "religious freedom" exemptions. The "public venue" laws wuld only apply to a church that had regularly opened its grounds to secular activities.
                              We're talking about marriages here --- no? We don't have "secular" marriages.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                But you seem to assume that Churches are opening their doors and "venues" to ANY kind of wedding, and I don't think that's true
                                Some do. Those would be subject to public venue laws, unless they chose to restrict their hall rentals to Christian events only. One need not keep it members only, though that would be clearly cut-and-dried. One can say "Only within certain denomination" or "Only after counseling by the pastor to assure that our doctrinal requirements are fulfilled."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Today, 08:14 PM
                                0 responses
                                7 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
                                11 responses
                                125 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                34 responses
                                279 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                79 responses
                                485 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sam
                                by Sam
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                115 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X