Gay marriage

[kahrk-9]

Are you suggesting that the SCOTUS make rulings based on how the radical Muslims will react? Or that the SCOTUS should even care? Also, the 10/40 Window Muslims do not, as a majority, hate the U.S.. Most of the radical Muslims that do hate the U.S. do not hate us because of our freedoms or indulgences. They hate us because of our support of Israel.

I never suggested the SCOTUS do anything. I disagree with why they hate us but I imagine your expertise on eastern political science is on par with mine.

 

[kahrk-9]

Let marriage be held in honor among ALL, and let the marriage bed be undefined, for GOD will JUDGE the sexually immoral and adulterous. Hebrews 13:4

Looks like The Big Guy & J.C. have this covered, our judgement of homosexuals is not required.

If this was your point in starting this thread, why not state that on the first post instead of asking people what they think is an honest question but is actually opening them up to get sucked into some drawn out word checkers. I got married for my religious beliefs. I have no idea why secular people do so nor why the governments feel like they need to involve themselves in it. What happened to separation of church and state liberals are so proud of? I do believe this ruling will have a negative impact on the American family in the long run and hence have a negative impact on the economy and crime, but I can't prove it now so my mere opinion probably seems and is in fact out of ignorance. But again, I am answering the question you asked at the beginning of the thread. Feel free to bash away as seems to be the point here.

 

[BadgeBunny]

If this was your point in starting this thread, why not state that on the first post instead of asking people what they think is an honest question but is actually opening them up to get sucked into some drawn out word checkers. I got married for my religious beliefs. I have no idea why secular people do so nor why the governments feel like they need to involve themselves in it. What happened to separation of church and state liberals are so proud of? I do believe this ruling will have a negative impact on the American family in the long run and hence have a negative impact on the economy and crime, but I can't prove it now so my mere opinion probably seems and is in fact out of ignorance. But again, I am answering the question you asked at the beginning of the thread. Feel free to bash away as seems to be the point here.

This is the best post in this thread. (Well, except for the ones where been came out to play for a minute!!)

 

[JD8]

If this was your point in starting this thread, why not state that on the first post instead of asking people what they think is an honest question but is actually opening them up to get sucked into some drawn out word checkers. I got married for my religious beliefs. I have no idea why secular people do so nor why the governments feel like they need to involve themselves in it. What happened to separation of church and state liberals are so proud of? I do believe this ruling will have a negative impact on the American family in the long run and hence have a negative impact on the economy and crime, but I can't prove it now so my mere opinion probably seems and is in fact out of ignorance. But again, I am answering the question you asked at the beginning of the thread. Feel free to bash away as seems to be the point here.

Secular people want to get married for several reasons. You just have to realize that marriage isn't necessarily a religious institution, several cultures have embraced it and the history of the concept goes back far beyond the point in time at which man created christianity, islam, etc etc.

The state being involved is just the nature of the beast if you want to be involved in legal decisions, tax exemptions, and spousal benefits.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

If this was your point in starting this thread, why not state that on the first post instead of asking people what they think is an honest question but is actually opening them up to get sucked into some drawn out word checkers. I got married for my religious beliefs. I have no idea why secular people do so nor why the governments feel like they need to involve themselves in it. What happened to separation of church and state liberals are so proud of? I do believe this ruling will have a negative impact on the American family in the long run and hence have a negative impact on the economy and crime, but I can't prove it now so my mere opinion probably seems and is in fact out of ignorance. But again, I am answering the question you asked at the beginning of the thread. Feel free to bash away as seems to be the point here.

It's been awhile, but the original question was how will gays getting married effect your life. I honestly can't see how people who are already living as if they are married being allowed to marry will have a negative impact on society. Feel free to paint a picture.

 

[Dale00]

Secular people want to get married for several reasons. You just have to realize that marriage isn't necessarily a religious institution, several cultures have embraced it and the history of the concept goes back far beyond the point in time at which man created christianity, islam, etc etc.

The state being involved is just the nature of the beast if you want to be involved in legal decisions, tax exemptions, and spousal benefits.

So do you support the way in which these Christian bakers have been treated? Is it "just the state being involved'?

The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering.”

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” the final order read. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

According to the BOLI, the lesbian couple suffered great angst. One of the women “felt depressed and questioned whether there was something inherently wrong with the sexual orientation she was born with.” They said she had “difficulty controlling her emotions and cried a lot.”

The other woman “experienced extreme anger, outrage, embarrassment, exhaustion, frustration, intense sorrow and shame” simply because the Kleins refused to provide them with a wedding cake.

Jeez. That must have been one heck of a cake.

It sounds as if the state of Oregon is sending a stern warning to Christian business owners like the Kleins.

“Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society,” the ruling states. “The ability to enter public places, to shop and dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”

Does The Bureau of Labor and Industry truly believe that Christians who want to follow the teachings of their faith are bigots?

It certainly seems to me the only entity guilty of unfettered bigotry is the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry.

Since the day they turned away the lesbian couple’s business, the Kleins have suffered greatly. Their business was subjected to boycotts and pickets. LGBT activists and their supporters threatened any wedding vendor that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.

Mrs. Klein told me her five children were subjected to death threats -- death threats for simply refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding. That doesn’t sound very tolerant to me.

Eventually, the bullying became so severe the family had to shut down their retail store and Mr. Klein had to take a job picking up garbage. Today, Mrs. Klein continues to make cakes in her home.

“We were just running our business the best we could – following the Lord’s example,” she said. “I’m just blown away by the ruling. They are punishing us for not participating in the wedding.”

Mr. Klein said he plans on appealing the ruling and had harsh words for BOLI Commissioner Brad Avakian.

“This man has no power over me,” Klein said. “He seems to think he can tell me to be quiet. That doesn’t sit well with me and I refuse to comply.”

Mr. Klein accused the BOLI of ordering him to not speak publicly about the case – an order he said is unconstitutional.

“When my constitutional freedoms have been violated by the state I’m going to speak out,” he said. “That’s the way it is.”

Regardless, the Klein case has demonstrated once again that gay rights trump religious liberty. Other Christian business owners should pay close attention.

The Kleins had a choice. They could obey the government or they could obey God. They chose God – and now they must pay the price.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...ntcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obnetwork

Perhaps the angst reportedly suffered by the lesbian couple is genuine, perhaps just an excuse to force their beliefs on others. But even if their angst is 100% genuine do you think that the very large fine and restriction on the freedom of speech of the Christian bakers is justified? OR should the lesbian couple just have moved on to find another baker and forgotten about it.

 

[donner]

If this was your point in starting this thread, why not state that on the first post instead of asking people what they think is an honest question but is actually opening them up to get sucked into some drawn out word checkers. I got married for my religious beliefs. I have no idea why secular people do so nor why the governments feel like they need to involve themselves in it. What happened to separation of church and state liberals are so proud of? I do believe this ruling will have a negative impact on the American family in the long run and hence have a negative impact on the economy and crime, but I can't prove it now so my mere opinion probably seems and is in fact out of ignorance. But again, I am answering the question you asked at the beginning of the thread. Feel free to bash away as seems to be the point here.

The state being involved is just the nature of the beast if you want to be involved in legal decisions, tax exemptions, and spousal benefits.

It's been awhile, but the original question was how will gays getting married effect your life. I honestly can't see how people who are already living as if they are married being allowed to marry will have a negative impact on society. Feel free to paint a picture.

Thanks Kahrk-9 for the post. I'd point out that separation of church and state isn't just a liberal ideal, but certainly is one that seems to get pushed aside whenever needed.

GM covered the legal reasons for getting married that extend beyond religious beliefs.

I'd also say that i still haven't seen why having two parents who love a child is bad for the family in the long run. As i said in a much earlier post, how is loving, protecting and supporting a child a bad thing just because its done with two mommies or daddies? In watching the news, i'd say it's pretty clear that bad parenting knows no sexual orientation.

Besides, since not all gay couples have to adopt, it is not like the state can stop them from having children of their own. So at that point, why stop them from having a two-parent family? Do we really think that saying that gay couples can live together, but not be married, really matters that much to the kids they have together? If we say that having married heterosexual parents is that much better for a child then why would that be any different for homosexual parents?

 

[donner]

So do you support the way in which these Christian bakers have been treated? Is it "just the state being involved'?



Perhaps the angst reportedly suffered by the lesbian couple is genuine, perhaps just an excuse to force their beliefs on others. But even if their angst is 100% genuine do you think that the very large fine and restriction on the freedom of speech of the Christian bakers is justified? OR should the lesbian couple just have moved on to find another baker and forgotten about it.

As i said in post 395

"So what is the solution to the issue of religious freedoms vs the rights of others? Do the rights of one trump the other?

Scenario 1: gays are denied the right to marry because of fear they will demand things from religious people

Scenario 2: the right to equal protection under the law is acknowledged, gays are allowed to marry and there is a push for access to businesses that object on religious grounds.

Without getting into the fact that 'religious grounds' have been used before in our country to deny certain groups equal access, i'd just say that it seems far better to start from equal footing (i.e. Everyone has the same protected rights) and take the next step as it comes (as you noted with the court challenges). Rather than denying part of the population equal protections because it *might* infringe on the rights of business owners (who are already operating with legal restrictions when they can refuse service).

Both sides need to take a step back and relax. The gays pushing the issue are wrong, but so are the people who denied gays the legal benefits that marriage provides.

Having been around the wedding business for 10 years, i can tell you there are many ways to get out of dealing with clients you don't want to work with without it being about the orientation of the couple. The ones who are making news are doing so because they felt the need to make a scene about how their religious views play into it (again, not attacking their views, just the need to tell someone you disagree with their lifestyle when there are other easier ways out of it).

Finally, i don't buy the whole 'baking a cake' as being part of the wedding. It's stupid. Few here would support the notion that a gun shop was part of a mass shooting because it sold the gun to the shooter. So why would a cake baker be 'part' of the wedding for simply providing a good to the couple? Ministers i can understand, but that then makes me wonder why you'd want someone at your wedding who didn't want to be there to support and celebration your marriage.

No one here is wholly right or wrong, but starting from a place of equal access/protections is the first step. We can address the issues that arise as they come."

And expanded in post 407

"Petition the courts, let them either apply the (majority) ruling or not. If so, good. If not, appeal.

No one ever said the gay couples pushing these 'agendas' are correct. They can be wrong too. Just like those opposed to extending equal protections of the law to gay marriages were."

 

[JD8]

So do you support the way in which these Christian bakers have been treated? Is it "just the state being involved'?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...ntcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obnetwork

Perhaps the angst reportedly suffered by the lesbian couple is genuine, perhaps just an excuse to force their beliefs on others. But even if their angst is 100% genuine do you think that the very large fine and restriction on the freedom of speech of the Christian bakers is jusfied? OR should the lesbian couple just have moved on to find another baker and forgotten about it.

This has nothing to do with gay marriage but it's complicated IMO. I'll say this though.... the state made a particular law against discriminating when doing business with the public. People cry about states rights.... well you got em.

What I think is that there's a significant amount of jackassery on both parts. The baker is a hypocrite, as most christians are IMO, as I doubt he screened all of his previous clients of all sin to verify he agreed completely with all aspects of their lifestyle.

The lesbos are being beyond ridiculous in their claims IMO and should've gone down the road.

 

[Dale00]

As i said in post 395

"So what is the solution to the issue of religious freedoms vs the rights of others? Do the rights of one trump the other?

Scenario 1: gays are denied the right to marry because of fear they will demand things from religious people

Scenario 2: the right to equal protection under the law is acknowledged, gays are allowed to marry and there is a push for access to businesses that object on religious grounds.

Without getting into the fact that 'religious grounds' have been used before in our country to deny certain groups equal access, i'd just say that it seems far better to start from equal footing (i.e. Everyone has the same protected rights) and take the next step as it comes (as you noted with the court challenges). Rather than denying part of the population equal protections because it *might* infringe on the rights of business owners (who are already operating with legal restrictions when they can refuse service).

Both sides need to take a step back and relax. The gays pushing the issue are wrong, but so are the people who denied gays the legal benefits that marriage provides.

Having been around the wedding business for 10 years, i can tell you there are many ways to get out of dealing with clients you don't want to work with without it being about the orientation of the couple. The ones who are making news are doing so because they felt the need to make a scene about how their religious views play into it (again, not attacking their views, just the need to tell someone you disagree with their lifestyle when there are other easier ways out of it).

Finally, i don't buy the whole 'baking a cake' as being part of the wedding. It's stupid. Few here would support the notion that a gun shop was part of a mass shooting because it sold the gun to the shooter. So why would a cake baker be 'part' of the wedding for simply providing a good to the couple? Ministers i can understand, but that then makes me wonder why you'd want someone at your wedding who didn't want to be there to support and celebration your marriage.

No one here is wholly right or wrong, but starting from a place of equal access/protections is the first step. We can address the issues that arise as they come."

And expanded in post 407

"Petition the courts, let them either apply the (majority) ruling or not. If so, good. If not, appeal.

No one ever said the gay couples pushing these 'agendas' are correct. They can be wrong too. Just like those opposed to extending equal protections of the law to gay marriages were."

There are more than a few gay people who are using this as a wedge that will be progressively (pardon the pun) driven home to punish those who oppose homosexuality. These are not your nice gay coworkers and relatives. There is a militant gay faction. It is already illegal in Canada to say that homosexuality is a sin. You need to consider the militant gay endgame. Are there just a few of them who have no real power or are there enough of them to continue driving in the wedge by means of the legal system?

Finally, i don't buy the whole 'baking a cake' as being part of the wedding. It's stupid. Few here would support the notion that a gun shop was part of a mass shooting because it sold the gun to the shooter. So why would a cake baker be 'part' of the wedding for simply providing a good to the couple? Ministers i can understand, but that then makes me wonder why you'd want someone at your wedding who didn't want to be there to support and celebration your marriage.

One could also ask, "Why would you trust someone to do a good job baking your wedding cake who didn't want to support and celebrate your marriage?"