Athletes in favor of gay marriage rights

[sjt18]

What religious liberties will be infringed upon?

A business owner has a business. His strongly held religious belief is that homosexuality is immoral and that he should not support those relationships. He has been "tolerant" and knowingly employed a homosexual separating their private matters from business.

However now the law would force him to directly support a homosexual relationship with group benefits et al.

I had one person here very honestly acknowledge that this business owner's Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion and conscience would be trampled to extend the privileges of marriage to homosexuals.

Could parents say no to homosexual spouses presenting themselves to their children?

We have already seen Catholic adoption agencies have their rights violated for refusing to place children with homosexual couples.

If the gov't REALLY kept its nose out of our lives and business then I would support the legal end of marriage going to something like a pre-nup and getting the state out of it completely. But again, the issue for many if not most isn't correction of some real harm but rather forced acceptance on a social and moral level.

 

[droski]

so you'd be ok with a business owner being able to not give support to a black spouse if he was against interracial marriage?

 

[sjt18]

Are you saying the only reason Christians have these rights are because we discriminate against gays?

No. I am saying that ALL people of every stripe have the RIGHT to "discriminate" against people whose chosen behavior they disagree with. I am saying that gov't does NOT have the right to force moral or social acceptance of homosexuality down the throats of religious people any more than it has the right to force Christian Fundamentalism down the throats of homosexuals.... or atheists like IPO... or people like therealUT whatever he/she/it believes.

 

[lumberjack4]

No. I am saying that ALL people of every stripe have the RIGHT to "discriminate" against people whose chosen behavior they disagree with. I am saying that gov't does NOT have the right to force moral or social acceptance of homosexuality down the throats of religious people any more than it has the right to force Christian Fundamentalism down the throats of homosexuals.... or atheists like IPO... or people like therealUT whatever he/she/it believes.

Ok I understand now. Its ok for the Federal Government to kowtow to the Religious Right and refuse to offer homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexuals, but if they decide to stop discriminating and afford both groups equal rights, then they're shoving moral acceptance down the throats of a vocal minority.

 

[sjt18]

so you'd be ok with a business owner being able to not give support to a black spouse if he was against interracial marriage?

Only if they got up in the morning and said, "Hey, I think I'll have more melanin today".

I do not buy the notion that there is more than one "race" of human beings. We ARE one race.

Colin Powell rightly called race a benign characteristic. It isn't chosen. It isn't changeable.

Legally speaking, I think a public boycott of that business is favorable to gov't force. I would view it somewhat on par with KKK marches.

Even when I vehemently disagree with someone... I get very uneasy when gov't decides to tell them what they must think or do on their own property.

 

[sjt18]

Ok I understand now. Its ok for the Federal Government to kowtow to the Religious Right and refuse to offer homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexuals, but if they decide to stop discriminating and afford both groups equal rights, then they're shoving moral acceptance down the throats of a vocal minority.

No. Apparently you have no clue.

 

[sjt18]

try not having sex for a decade or so and see how much your will to live is.

People have done that and more while maintaining plenty of "will to live".

 

[lumberjack4]

No. Apparently you have no clue.

That's what you wrote. :blink:

 

[sjt18]

Why does this sound like anti-desegregation reasoning?

Because you are trying to equate to things that are not the same nor similar.

And lol at "neutral" education meaning no mentioning of homosexuality.

Give parents vouchers to send their kids to the school of their choice and we won't have to engage in the futile argument of what constitutes "neutral". Tacit approval and/or treating homosexual marriage on the same level as hetero marriage to children certainly isn't "neutral".

 

[sjt18]

That's what you wrote. :blink:

No. It is an intentional distortion by you so that you can argue against something that is not my point... but that you feel you can win against... and that's without mentioning your efforts to poison the well.

 

[gcbvol]

People have done that and more while maintaining plenty of "will to live".

I simply don't understand why they would have to. Certainly does not seem like a fair or equal expectation.

 

[droski]

Only if they got up in the morning and said, "Hey, I think I'll have more melanin today".

I do not buy the notion that there is more than one "race" of human beings. We ARE one race.

Colin Powell rightly called race a benign characteristic. It isn't chosen. It isn't changeable.

Legally speaking, I think a public boycott of that business is favorable to gov't force. I would view it somewhat on par with KKK marches.

Even when I vehemently disagree with someone... I get very uneasy when gov't decides to tell them what they must think or do on their own property.

i agree with you in principle. i.e. we could all boycott said person. but i do think discrimination laws serve a purpose to a degree.

People have done that and more while maintaining plenty of "will to live".

as a guy who went to catholic school we'll have to agree to disagree that you can be ok with a vow of chastity.

 

[lumberjack4]

No. It is an intentional distortion by you so that you can argue against something that is not my point... but that you feel you can win against... and that's without mentioning your efforts to poison the well.

You're opposed to the government (who can't discriminate) granting same sex couples the same rights under the law as heterosexual couples. It's been mentioned numerous times what homosexual couples cannot due under federal law that heterosexuals can. Telling someone that they cannot be next of kin because they're gay, telling someone that tax breaks don't apply to you because you're gay, telling someone you don't have power of attorney because you're gay, that's discrimination. I am amazed how granting these privileges to our fellow citizens is considered the forcing of "moral or social acceptance of homosexuality down the throats of religious people". It seems to me we are forcing the moral or social acceptance of heterosexuality down the throats of all people living in this country, regardless of religious views.

My stance has always been:

Just let everything be a civil union in the eyes of the government. Christians can call their civil union whatever they want and the Gays can call it whatever they want. It's still a civil union.

 

[milohimself]

That's what we are talking about here. If you are not hetero, you're not privy to property rights you'd normally get if you were. If a business owner prefers not to hire gay people, fine. But I don't see how you can support giving property rights to one group of people that make a lifestyle choice and not give them to another (if you believe homosexuality is a choice).
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VOLatile]

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Would calling someone a MF be a slur against those that practice incest?

 

[NEO]

Would calling someone a MF be a slur against those that practice incest?

I think it's more a slur against men who prefer MILFS and honestly I think it's pretty gay to say such a thing.

 

[volinbham]

That's what we are talking about here. If you are not hetero, you're not privy to property rights you'd normally get if you were. If a business owner prefers not to hire gay people, fine. But I don't see how you can support giving property rights to one group of people that make a lifestyle choice and not give them to another (if you believe homosexuality is a choice).
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yes and no - we keep changing the terms.

There are the legal rights and there is the symbolic acknowledgment.

Civil unions rectify the problem you address above. Adding the terminology of marriage adds the symbolism. Some believe the legal rights are the real issue and civil unions are sufficient. Others demand the symbolism be part of the deal.

I can see the logic of both positions and can support either.

(not arguing with you Milo; just using your post to make a point).

 

[milohimself]

No, we're both on the same page. Let the state call straight people married and gay couples civil unions... As long as they can get the same status, I'm happy.

 

[BloodRUNZOrange]

i mean i really dont think people care that much. i know i dont. its amazing to me the "party that wants government out of their lives" always want to pass laws that get involved with other people lives..

 

[BloodRUNZOrange]

No, we're both on the same page. Let the state call straight people married and gay couples civil unions... As long as they can get the same status, I'm happy.

im not saying thats a bad idea but i always thought the best way to go about it is have the legal term " marrige" changed. "marrige" is a religious tern so to solve this is simple. in the eyes of the state or government just have legal unions-for straight gay whatever. that way no one feels like the other is getting special treatment in the eyes of the government.

let churches practice whatever they want sense church and state are sep.

whaa laa problem solved and everyone is happy...

 

[KiffinKiller]

im not saying thats a bad idea but i always thought the best way to go about it is have the legal term " marrige" changed. "marrige" is a religious tern so to solve this is simple. in the eyes of the state or government just have legal unions-for straight gay whatever. that way no one feels like the other is getting special treatment in the eyes of the government.

let churches practice whatever they want sense church and state are sep.

whaa laa problem solved and everyone is happy...

I agree, but it will never happen. MHF will tie himself to the court doors.

 

[volinbham]

i mean i really dont think people care that much. i know i dont. its amazing to me the "party that wants government out of their lives" always want to pass laws that get involved with other people lives..

Wouldn't sanctioning marriage be getting into someone's life?

I would argue that those supporting gay marriage (using the word marriage) are asking government to get INTO the lives of gay couples.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Wouldn't sanctioning marriage be getting into someone's life?

I would argue that those supporting gay marriage (using the word marriage) are asking government to get INTO the lives of gay couples.

Oh so inversely, those who are anti-gay marriage are doing so to protect gays from the government interfering in the lives of gays?

 

[volinbham]

Oh so inversely, those who are anti-gay marriage are doing so to protect gays from the government interfering in the lives of gays?

No. I just don't buy the argument that demanding the government get involved in gay relationships is akin to keeping government out of personal lives. That old argument just doesn't fit this situation.

Now if it was illegal to be gay then the argument would fit.