PDA

View Full Version : Federal appeals court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional



Quid
05-31-2012, 06:05 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-doma-appeals-court-20120531,0,4385237.story

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. appeals court in Boston became the first such court to strike down as unconstitutional the federal Defense of Marriage Act, ruling Thursday that it unfairly denies equal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

The ruling is a victory for gay-rights advocates and the Obama administration, which had refused to defend that part of the 1996 law.

--------

Nice.

AJBIGJ
05-31-2012, 06:20 PM
I'm a little hesitant to go along with the notion that Section 3 of the DOMA is technically unconstitutional, but I think going after that portion of the statute is a step in the right direction. If we broaden the Federal definition of marriage to put every single Massachusetts State Marriage License on equal footing with ever single Mississippi Marriage License, it's definitely a better solution than is the status quo.

Banned
05-31-2012, 10:14 PM
About time this happened. I'm almost tempted to go to church this Sunday and have a private laugh at the pastor screaming about the sky falling (He will too).

imported_WINTHORP1
06-01-2012, 04:36 AM
I'm glad the first steps are being taken to ensure equal rights and treatments are being applied to same sex couples. Our country is suppose to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not say life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you're gay. There is no good legal reason why we should not recognize and give benefits to same-sex couples. If the argument is that the Bibles say it's wrong, you have to remember, we have separation between church and state. Therefore, our laws cannot be based on religion. Besides, our country has no national religion. if you start trying to pass laws based on religion, which religion do we base our laws on? Muslims, Orthodox, Christianity, Jewish, etc.

AJBIGJ
06-01-2012, 01:21 PM
About time this happened. I'm almost tempted to go to church this Sunday and have a private laugh at the pastor screaming about the sky falling (He will too).

You might be surprised in some cases. Two weeks ago at the church I attend the pastor came to the defense of Obama when the whole "First Gay President" stuff was big in the news. Although, I will admit, this pastor is probably more similar than not to Jeremiah Wright than anything else. I go anyway, the Baptist churches that started out as Southern Black Baptist churches have so much more energy!

Banned
06-01-2012, 06:59 PM
You might be surprised in some cases. Two weeks ago at the church I attend the pastor came to the defense of Obama when the whole "First Gay President" stuff was big in the news. Although, I will admit, this pastor is probably more similar than not to Jeremiah Wright than anything else. I go anyway, the Baptist churches that started out as Southern Black Baptist churches have so much more energy!

No, not mine. Mine is crazy.

AJBIGJ
06-04-2012, 06:05 PM
No, not mine. Mine is crazy.

I wasn't aware you still did go to one!

Banned
06-04-2012, 07:52 PM
I wasn't aware you still did go to one!

Sometimes I go with the family. Usually not though. Especially after the sermon about seal team six. I face palmed in that one. Not to say I'm a pacifist or anything, but me going up to the pulpit and gloating about how many confirmed kills I got would be a strange topic for a Christian service, so gloating about seal team six just gave me strange vibes.

Not that I actually have any confirmed kills to gloat about.

AJBIGJ
06-04-2012, 08:00 PM
Sometimes I go with the family. Usually not though. Especially after the sermon about seal team six. I face palmed in that one. Not to say I'm a pacifist or anything, but me going up to the pulpit and gloating about how many confirmed kills I got would be a strange topic for a Christian service, so gloating about seal team six just gave me strange vibes.

Not that I actually have any confirmed kills to gloat about.

That is a little off for me as well. I take it the family is a bit more into it (feel free to mind my own beeswax if it gets uncomfortable) than yourself? One thing that I find personally compelling is how common it is among those who choose not to believe have the Christian religion in their personal histories. I think it's no accident that Christian churches seems to be the world's most prominent Atheist production factories.

Pullinteeth
06-26-2013, 07:04 PM
Supreme Court ruled such rules are unConstitutional...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-marriage-act-provision/

Stalwart
06-26-2013, 07:51 PM
Agree or disagree with same sex marriage, I don't understand withholding federal benefits and protections from someone based on orientation.

I have been to some places in the world and seen the horrors that people inflict on other people. If two consenting people can find love, happiness and comfort with each other then good for them ... I could really care less about their anatomy.

Banned
06-26-2013, 08:13 PM
Agree or disagree with same sex marriage, I don't understand withholding federal benefits and protections from someone based on orientation.

I have been to some places in the world and seen the horrors that are people inflict on other people. If two consenting people can find love, happiness and comfort with each other then good for them ... I could really care less about their anatomy.

There is no rational reason for it. These fanatics are just bitter, angry people with shitty marriages - they get off on making OTHER people unhappy by taking away their rights.

Pullinteeth
06-26-2013, 08:18 PM
There is no rational reason for it. These fanatics are just bitter, angry people with shitty marriages - they get off on making OTHER people unhappy by taking away their rights.

Only beef I have with you on this is that they weren't taking away any rights, they were just preventing others from getting them....semantics I know but....that's just me...:hat

Stalwart
06-26-2013, 08:35 PM
There is no rational reason for it. These fanatics are just bitter, angry people with shitty marriages - they get off on making OTHER people unhappy by taking away their rights.

To be fair, there are fanatics on both sides of every argument. Rational thought processes are generally not a characteristic of fanatics whether conservative or liberal.

efmbman
06-26-2013, 10:36 PM
I am thrilled this happened - long overdue in my opinion. My last 6 years in the Army were spent as a healthcare recruiter. It was not a comfortable feeling to explain that yes, gays can now serve openly (after the repeal of DADT), but it is a hollow measure since same-sex spouses are not entitled to the same benefits as an opposite-sex spouse.

Again, long overdue and this decision restored (only slightly) my confidence in our system of government. Who what tomorrow will bring... but I will be happy today.

raider8169
06-27-2013, 04:26 AM
While it is about time this happened I am wondering how long it will be before the military starts giving the benifits to gay spouses.

Let alone that is going to make the finances harder on the military.

garhkal
06-27-2013, 04:54 AM
I would like to know for those who do advocate for allowing anyone who loves someone enough to get married to have the right to do so, should it extend to other 'groups? Such as those who want to marry animals? Kids??

But for me, it seems a bit of a downer that they decided the way they did, as it seems to say that the 'will of the people' is not enough for them'.

raider8169
06-27-2013, 08:14 AM
I would like to know for those who do advocate for allowing anyone who loves someone enough to get married to have the right to do so, should it extend to other 'groups? Such as those who want to marry animals? Kids??

But for me, it seems a bit of a downer that they decided the way they did, as it seems to say that the 'will of the people' is not enough for them'.

The key word is going to be consenting. Not sure how many animals will be able to consent.

E4RUMOR
06-27-2013, 02:05 PM
Somewhere in the back of my mind, I recall that during the hot debates about whether DADT should be removed, or after it was removed, I had mentioned that this would be the next step for the Gay / Bi / Lesbian community and advocates.

With this ruling, I wonder what other steps are going to be pushed for?

If nothing, and everything was accomplished, then there really can't be any complaining about inequality.

Actually, now that I think about it, it'll probably be some lawsuits about past prejudice, violation of Constitutional rights, defamation of character, harassment, etc.,

Well good for all the gays and lesbians out there...glad you got what you wanted. Are we satisfied now?

Pullinteeth
06-27-2013, 02:56 PM
While it is about time this happened I am wondering how long it will be before the military starts giving the benifits to gay spouses.

Let alone that is going to make the finances harder on the military.

As they should. If two apparently hetero servicemembers can get married strictly for the bennies, why can't two homos that actually love each other get married and get those same bennies? My only caveat would be that they have to actually be friggin married-as it if you break up, your boy-toy gets half your stuff...

CYBERFX1024
06-27-2013, 03:15 PM
Somewhere in the back of my mind, I recall that during the hot debates about whether DADT should be removed, or after it was removed, I had mentioned that this would be the next step for the Gay / Bi / Lesbian community and advocates.
With this ruling, I wonder what other steps are going to be pushed for?
If nothing, and everything was accomplished, then there really can't be any complaining about inequality.
Actually, now that I think about it, it'll probably be some lawsuits about past prejudice, violation of Constitutional rights, defamation of character, harassment, etc.,
Well good for all the gays and lesbians out there...glad you got what you wanted. Are we satisfied now?

They are already challenging the laws on polygamy. So I guess that is the next best thing.

Measure Man
06-27-2013, 04:08 PM
While it is about time this happened I am wondering how long it will be before the military starts giving the benifits to gay spouses.

I believe SECDEF already made a statement that it will happen rather quickly.


Let alone that is going to make the finances harder on the military.

I always find this curious...allowing the 92-98% of heteros to marry and get benefits is just a given...but providing those same benefits to the 2-8% of gay couples is going to break the bank.


I would like to know for those who do advocate for allowing anyone who loves someone enough to get married to have the right to do so, should it extend to other 'groups? Such as those who want to marry animals? Kids??

No...consent is key, as mentioned.


But for me, it seems a bit of a downer that they decided the way they did, as it seems to say that the 'will of the people' is not enough for them'.

Individual rights are not up for vote.


Somewhere in the back of my mind, I recall that during the hot debates about whether DADT should be removed, or after it was removed, I had mentioned that this would be the next step for the Gay / Bi / Lesbian community and advocates.

Yes, I'm sure that came up. I'm also sure that I agreed that once DADT is removed, it would be the right thing to do to allow gay couples benefits, as well, and even live in base housing.

This almost sounds like you're saying "I told you so"....as if this is a bad thing.


With this ruling, I wonder what other steps are going to be pushed for?

Well...there are still 38 states that gay people can't get married in...and I forget the number, but there are bunch of states where you can still be fired for being gay. So, my guess is that is next.

I'm also guessing the transgender issue will be coming up at some point.


If nothing, and everything was accomplished, then there really can't be any complaining about inequality.

Actually, now that I think about it, it'll probably be some lawsuits about past prejudice, violation of Constitutional rights, defamation of character, harassment, etc.,

Reckon we'll see...there is probably still enough of all that in the present to keep the courts busy.


Well good for all the gays and lesbians out there...glad you got what you wanted. Are we satisfied now?

Yes, good for them

CYBERFX1024
06-27-2013, 04:59 PM
Having said that Cyberfx raises an interesting point…..if you remove the premise that marriage is between one man and one woman why by extension you remove the word ‘one’? The crux of every argument seems to be that the individuals involved are in love and deserve to live their lives in the same legal state of marriage as heterosexual couples. Why doesn’t that get extended to polygamous relationships?

That's the whole thing that people have brought up. Where does it stop? Are people going to argue over having the "right" to bestiality now? I am not against gay marriage at all. My best friend is going to come out to California and marry her girlfriend. But hell I would love to have two wife's. Bring it on.

TJMAC77SP
06-27-2013, 05:04 PM
They are already challenging the laws on polygamy. So I guess that is the next best thing.

Ok, first a disclaimer.................

I am not defending any ban on same-sex marriages nor am I promoting polygamy in any way. Merely proposing an intellectual point.

Having said that Cyberfx raises an interesting point…..if you remove the premise that marriage is between one man and one woman why by extension you remove the word ‘one’? The crux of every argument seems to be that the individuals involved are in love and deserve to live their lives in the same legal state of marriage as heterosexual couples. Why doesn’t that get extended to polygamous or polyamorous relationships?

CYBERFX1024
06-27-2013, 05:12 PM
Having said that Cyberfx raises an interesting point…..if you remove the premise that marriage is between one man and one woman why by extension you remove the word ‘one’? The crux of every argument seems to be that the individuals involved are in love and deserve to live their lives in the same legal state of marriage as heterosexual couples. Why doesn’t that get extended to polygamous relationships?

That's the whole thing that people have brought up. Where does it stop? Are people going to argue over having the "right" to bestiality now? I am not against gay marriage at all. My best friend is going to come out to California and marry her girlfriend. But hell I would love to have two wife's. Bring it on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349481/Polygamists-welcome-Supreme-Court-rulings-gay-marriage-predicting-relationships-multiple-people-next.html

Pullinteeth
06-27-2013, 05:29 PM
Why doesn’t that get extended to polygamous or polyamorous relationships?

Because polyamorous couples aren't necessarily married...they just "love" others.... If you opened it up to all of them, you would have to give bennies to eveyone that dated a military member and that just isn't realistic or even something I think ANYONE would advocate...

TJMAC77SP
06-27-2013, 05:47 PM
Because polyamorous couples aren't necessarily married...they just "love" others.... If you opened it up to all of them, you would have to give bennies to eveyone that dated a military member and that just isn't realistic or even something I think ANYONE would advocate...

So limit it to Polygamous.

Banned
06-27-2013, 07:06 PM
Ok, first a disclaimer.................

I am not defending any ban on same-sex marriages nor am I promoting polygamy in any way. Merely proposing an intellectual point.

Having said that Cyberfx raises an interesting point…..if you remove the premise that marriage is between one man and one woman why by extension you remove the word ‘one’? The crux of every argument seems to be that the individuals involved are in love and deserve to live their lives in the same legal state of marriage as heterosexual couples. Why doesn’t that get extended to polygamous or polyamorous relationships?

Cultural norms still apply. Gay rights only started to gain ground after religious fanatics had begun to lose their stranglehold on the country. Likewise, I don't predict polygamy becoming legal unless the majority of people start seeing it as an acceptable practice.

TJMAC77SP
06-27-2013, 07:27 PM
Cultural norms still apply. Gay rights only started to gain ground after religious fanatics had begun to lose their stranglehold on the country. Likewise, I don't predict polygamy becoming legal unless the majority of people start seeing it as an acceptable practice.

Joe, it is exactly cultural norms that say that same sex couples aren't 'normal'. What other 'norms' would say that? I do agree that polygamy isn't likely to become legal but why shouldn't it, applying the logic of these times?

And I disagree with your timeline because I see more influence by a very vocal radical religious minority now then I did 15 years ago

garhkal
06-27-2013, 08:19 PM
The key word is going to be consenting. Not sure how many animals will be able to consent.

So bigamy/polygamy is ok IYO since they are consenting.




South will be happy if people can marry family members now.



This is my sister-wife.. Uhuh


Joe, it is exactly cultural norms that say that same sex couples aren't 'normal'. What other 'norms' would say that? I do agree that polygamy isn't likely to become legal but why shouldn't it, applying the logic of these times?

Very true. If norms are changing marriage definitions to allow gay/les/bi/tran etc to get married, why not family or polygamy?

TSgt"M"
06-27-2013, 08:36 PM
I don't know. I have no problems with GLT (what ever the acroname is) but I'm afraid its going to be slippery slope. Every time PC becomes law the old americana takes a hit in rights. The more we progress, we backslide a little bit more.

Measure Man
06-27-2013, 10:32 PM
Every time PC becomes law the old americana takes a hit in rights.

I'm not sure what you mean...can you give an example?

Measure Man
06-27-2013, 10:32 PM
So bigamy/polygamy is ok IYO since they are consenting.

What do you have against it?

garhkal
06-27-2013, 11:00 PM
What do you have against it?

Noting.. i am just saying, if we are all for allowing this cause they love one another, what comes next?

Measure Man
06-27-2013, 11:55 PM
Noting.. i am just saying, if we are all for allowing this cause they love one another, what comes next?

Okay...I don't think polygamy is next, IMO.

Next, I think is still working on gay rights since they are not in every state yet...i.e. equal employment, marriage....this one isn't quite over yet.

And, the transgender equality is probably next after that...or Tattooed-American rights.

efmbman
06-28-2013, 12:54 AM
Some of the opinions expressed in this thread seems to have the approval of, or were copied from, a potential 2016 presidential candidate...

Link: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/27/rand-paul-bestiality-comment-sarcasm-office-says/?hpt=hp_t2

Banned
06-28-2013, 01:00 AM
Joe, it is exactly cultural norms that say that same sex couples aren't 'normal'. What other 'norms' would say that? I do agree that polygamy isn't likely to become legal but why shouldn't it, applying the logic of these times?

I'm not disagreeing with you - by this standard there's no reason at all polygamy should be illegal. I'm just saying it won't happen unless cultural attitudes towards polygamy change radically.


And I disagree with your timeline because I see more influence by a very vocal radical religious minority now then I did 15 years ago

I think you're right - however - I think this increased activity is out of desperation. We're at a demographic tipping point - the zealots realize this, and are trying to use their majorities to shove through as many theocratic laws and policies as they can before that majority shrinks - from elderly voters dying off.

imnohero
06-28-2013, 01:13 AM
The primary reason that DOMA was unconstitutional was because it
a) denied federal benefits to one group while providing them to another, this violates the 14th amendment
b) violated the federalist principle of equal sovereignty of the states. That is, the federal government, in this law, was sanctioning the laws of some states and not others, this is not the proper role of the federal government between the states.

While DOMA is wrapped up in "the definition of marriage" as heterosexual...that is a moral argument, not a legal one. Federal laws are supposed to be as neutral as possible with regard to the various moral theories expressed in our culture. Homosexual marriages do not "harm society", at least no more than heterosexual marriages, given the reality of the institution at present (divorce rates, abuse, neglect, etc.) Absent a definitive "harm", the federal government has no compelling interest in restricting them. Which brings me right to the next point, with regard to, "what's next?" Polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. are to the detriment to civil society...and therefore the both the states and the federal government have a compelling interest in forbidding them.

E4RUMOR
06-28-2013, 02:45 AM
Cultural norms still apply. Gay rights only started to gain ground after religious fanatics had begun to lose their stranglehold on the country. Likewise, I don't predict polygamy becoming legal unless the majority of people start seeing it as an acceptable practice.

In all fairness Joe, the majority of Americans claim a particular faith.

What the statistics don't tell you is the percentage of people who actually practice their faith and beliefs on a day to day basis.

That number is far shorter. And it's based upon whether they consider themselves conservative, independent, or liberal.

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf

The link is a PDF file that actually breaks down the religious backgrounds, who practices on a regular basis, conception of God, existence of God, who prays everyday, how often church services are attended, etc.,.

You're going to realize that anyone can claim to be religious based off how they were raised, but that doesn't mean they are practicing it or placing a "stranglehold" (as you so eloquently stated) on the country.

It appears that it is a small majority actually standing up for their beliefs and vocalizing how the Government's decisons conflict with their faith practices. Which they have every right to do.

Some have claimed that if you don't like something, you don't have to read it, look at it, or be a part of it. However, when society deems something as a norm which conflicts with one's personal faith, avoidance is nearly impossible. You're forced to either adapt to your surroundings or find someplace else to abide.

However, Christians are given guidance by God is Romans 12:2 which says,"Don't copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God's will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect."

In John 15:18-19, Christ explains how the world will view Believers,18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Cross references:John 15:18 : ch. 7:7; 1 John 3:13; [ver. 23, 24]John 15:19 : [1 John 4:5]John 15:19 : ch. 17:14, 16; [Luke 6:26; Gal. 1:4; James 4:4]

That voice kind of points out your characteristics of "Religious" people and how you never waste an opportunity to mock or mention them with disdain. The Texas Ruling Thread you commented in is a perfect example....

Most quote bigotry, hypocricy, narrow-mindedness, etc., as their reason for despising religiousness. Some of those reasons have merit, because even though you practice a faith, you're still a human being subject to failure. Christians should never preach or act as if they are better than anyone else because of their faith. We're still flawed, just redeemed.

I chalk the despise up to the truth. We share what we have been taught and what God's Word teaches. True Believers ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit before reading the Bible, because reading it without the guidance of the Holy Spirit only allows one to see what is printed through their own eyes. Hence, a non-Believer will take what is written soley at face value and not read into the actual meaning of a verse. Its' much similar to reading poetry.

God's Word stirs up conviction in the human soul, and lets us know what is truly right and wrong... "God's word is living and active. It is sharper than any two-edged sword and cuts as deep as the place where soul and spirit meet, the place where joints and marrow meet. God's word judges a person's thoughts and intentions." Hebrews 4:12.

No one likes to be told when they are wrong. So it's not necessarily the individual they hate... it's the message. It's just taken out on the individual or the Faith as a whole.

garhkal
06-28-2013, 05:43 AM
Okay...I don't think polygamy is next, IMO.

Next, I think is still working on gay rights since they are not in every state yet...i.e. equal employment, marriage....this one isn't quite over yet.

And, the transgender equality is probably next after that...or Tattooed-American rights.

Well with so many kids these days supposedly being transgendered, i can easily see that..
Though i don't think a kid as young as 6 can even know the differences enough to properly make that decision (wanting to be the opposite sex) and it has to be pushed on them..

Banned
06-28-2013, 06:50 AM
In all fairness Joe, the majority of Americans claim a particular faith.

What the statistics don't tell you is the percentage of people who actually practice their faith and beliefs on a day to day basis.

That number is far shorter. And it's based upon whether they consider themselves conservative, independent, or liberal.

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf

The link is a PDF file that actually breaks down the religious backgrounds, who practices on a regular basis, conception of God, existence of God, who prays everyday, how often church services are attended, etc.,.

You're going to realize that anyone can claim to be religious based off how they were raised, but that doesn't mean they are practicing it or placing a "stranglehold" (as you so eloquently stated) on the country.

It appears that it is a small majority actually standing up for their beliefs and vocalizing how the Government's decisons conflict with their faith practices. Which they have every right to do.

Some have claimed that if you don't like something, you don't have to read it, look at it, or be a part of it. However, when society deems something as a norm which conflicts with one's personal faith, avoidance is nearly impossible. You're forced to either adapt to your surroundings or find someplace else to abide.

However, Christians are given guidance by God is Romans 12:2 which says,"Don't copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God's will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect."

In John 15:18-19, Christ explains how the world will view Believers,18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Cross references:John 15:18 : ch. 7:7; 1 John 3:13; [ver. 23, 24]John 15:19 : [1 John 4:5]John 15:19 : ch. 17:14, 16; [Luke 6:26; Gal. 1:4; James 4:4]

That voice kind of points out your characteristics of "Religious" people and how you never waste an opportunity to mock or mention them with disdain. The Texas Ruling Thread you commented in is a perfect example....

Most quote bigotry, hypocricy, narrow-mindedness, etc., as their reason for despising religiousness. Some of those reasons have merit, because even though you practice a faith, you're still a human being subject to failure. Christians should never preach or act as if they are better than anyone else because of their faith. We're still flawed, just redeemed.

I chalk the despise up to the truth. We share what we have been taught and what God's Word teaches. True Believers ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit before reading the Bible, because reading it without the guidance of the Holy Spirit only allows one to see what is printed through their own eyes. Hence, a non-Believer will take what is written soley at face value and not read into the actual meaning of a verse. Its' much similar to reading poetry.

God's Word stirs up conviction in the human soul, and lets us know what is truly right and wrong... "God's word is living and active. It is sharper than any two-edged sword and cuts as deep as the place where soul and spirit meet, the place where joints and marrow meet. God's word judges a person's thoughts and intentions." Hebrews 4:12.

No one likes to be told when they are wrong. So it's not necessarily the individual they hate... it's the message. It's just taken out on the individual or the Faith as a whole.

Thank you for your thorough and detailed response. Some thoughts from this:

1) Someone's faith being challenged is not a valid justification. I don't like broccoli, but I don't go around demanding that broccoli be banned.

2) Christ did speak in great detail about persecution and pacifism. Do you think he would agree with the belligerent and militant ideology Christianity has grown into? Would he approve of the "body of Christ" using the government, money, the police, and even armies to enforce their ideology on people weaker than them?

3) "The actual meaning" - I'm sorry, but I don't buy this at all. I would go so far to say this is a logical fallacy. Atheists (even atheists who are former Christians) read the Bible and point out that it is a horror show of mass murder, adultery, incest, and rape - but these points are dismissed for the silliest of reasons. "Well obviously you just haven't read it enough times", or "Well you're an atheist, so of course you don't understand!"

4) Also, on the same point - how good is this holy spirit at "guiding" people who read the Bible? Obviously he didn't do a very good job, considering how many hateful bigots there are out there using all of their energy to oppress people and take away their rights.


Sorry... I don't buy it.

E4RUMOR
06-29-2013, 12:37 AM
In matters of Faith, I can attempt by my own logic to make every justification in the world to you regarding each one of the points you brought up. But my logic is flawed. I'll sum it up this way, and then leave you alone to believe what you want to believe....but I hope you'll learn to add the word "most" in your sentences referring to religious people.

You don't "buy it". I get it, and know the real reason why, whether you do or not. Because while you opt to focus on the negative, I can turn around and show you people in this world who are true Christians that spread the message of Christ with compassion, love, and patience. The kind of people that would make you uncomfortable and feel a little guilty for looping them in with every other "Christian" you despise.

1 Corinthians 4 : God, with his mercy, gave us this work to do, so we don’t give up. 2 But we have turned away from secret and shameful ways. We don’t use trickery, and we don’t change the teaching of God. We teach the truth plainly. This is how we show people who we are. And this is how they can know in their hearts what kind of people we are before God. 3 The Good News that we tell people may be hidden, but it is hidden only to those who are lost. 4 The ruler[a] of this world has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They cannot see the light of the Good News—the message about the divine greatness of Christ. Christ is the one who is exactly like God. 5 We don’t tell people about ourselves. But we tell people that Jesus Christ is Lord, and we tell them that we are your servants for Jesus. 6 God once said, “Let light shine out of the darkness!”[b] And this is the same God who made his light shine in our hearts to let us know that his own divine greatness is seen in the face of Christ.

7 We have this treasure from God, but we are only like clay jars that hold the treasure. This is to show that the amazing power we have is from God, not from us. 8 We have troubles all around us, but we are not defeated. We often don’t know what to do, but we don’t give up. 9 We are persecuted, but God does not leave us. We are hurt sometimes, but we are not destroyed.

imnohero
06-29-2013, 02:13 AM
In matters of Faith, I can attempt by my own logic to make every justification in the world to you regarding each one of the points you brought up. But my logic is flawed. I'll sum it up this way, and then leave you alone to believe what you want to believe....but I hope you'll learn to add the word "most" in your sentences referring to religious people.

You don't "buy it". I get it, and know the real reason why, whether you do or not. Because while you opt to focus on the negative, I can turn around and show you people in this world who are true Christians that spread the message of Christ with compassion, love, and patience. The kind of people that would make you uncomfortable and feel a little guilty for looping them in with every other "Christian" you despise.

1 Corinthians 4 : God, with his mercy, gave us this work to do, so we don’t give up. 2 But we have turned away from secret and shameful ways. We don’t use trickery, and we don’t change the teaching of God. We teach the truth plainly. This is how we show people who we are. And this is how they can know in their hearts what kind of people we are before God. 3 The Good News that we tell people may be hidden, but it is hidden only to those who are lost. 4 The ruler[a] of this world has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They cannot see the light of the Good News—the message about the divine greatness of Christ. Christ is the one who is exactly like God. 5 We don’t tell people about ourselves. But we tell people that Jesus Christ is Lord, and we tell them that we are your servants for Jesus. 6 God once said, “Let light shine out of the darkness!”[b] And this is the same God who made his light shine in our hearts to let us know that his own divine greatness is seen in the face of Christ.

7 We have this treasure from God, but we are only like clay jars that hold the treasure. This is to show that the amazing power we have is from God, not from us. 8 We have troubles all around us, but we are not defeated. We often don’t know what to do, but we don’t give up. 9 We are persecuted, but God does not leave us. We are hurt sometimes, but we are not destroyed.

The issue is NOT what you (or I) believe (or don't) or what the bible says (or doesn't)...the issue is the use of government to force others to comply with a particular set of beliefs. Christians are free to believe and spread their beliefs, they are NOT free to use the government to force those beliefs on others. At least, they aren't supposed to be able to under the construct of our republic.

E4RUMOR
06-29-2013, 03:23 AM
The issue is NOT what you (or I) believe (or don't) or what the bible says (or doesn't)...the issue is the use of government to force others to comply with a particular set of beliefs. Christians are free to believe and spread their beliefs, they are NOT free to use the government to force those beliefs on others. At least, they aren't supposed to be able to under the construct of our republic.

Would it be fair to say there is a difference between forcing and influencing?

I don't see Christians forcing anyone to do anything. I see them protesting legislation and speaking out against principles they don't agree with in our government.
But no one is forcing a woman to walk away from an abortion clinic. No one is forcing a kid to pray in school. No one is forcing a kid to even say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. You are not forced to go to church.

I see a lot of influence, however. And there's nothing wrong with influencing legislation based off beliefs. Legislation is proposed based off what people deem is right or wrong. For the majority of Americans who claim a religious background, many of their beliefs of what is considered right or wrong is derived from those beliefs.

It's no different then the Athiest beliefs. Atheists believe there is no God. Based off that premise they continually push for legislation to remove any religious affiliation or significance in our schools, public offices, or have crosses removed from memorial sites on military bases.

Their actions are no different.

And make no mistake...Atheism is a belief, because it cannot absolutely disprove the existence of God based off facts alone.

E4RUMOR
06-29-2013, 03:32 AM
Kind of coincides with the Gay / Lesbian group of people who simply want to have the same rights as heterosexual couples in how the government sees them. They are not trying to push some new agenda on anyone... And they are not forcing anyone to agree with them... And perhaps they should be afforded the same rights. With that being said, beliefs should not be forced, but they shouldn't be prohibited either.

So a kid shouldn't get in trouble for praying in school, at the risk of offending someone else. Maybe an Atheist saying there is no God in a public building or school offends me... But I don't see them getting dismissed from school based off their beliefs.

4CECMC
06-29-2013, 03:38 AM
No matter how you paint the picture, this type of behavior is unnatural and "deviant". Thank goodness I don't reside in Base Quarters and forced to explain the neighbors' life style!

garhkal
06-29-2013, 06:58 AM
Would it be fair to say there is a difference between forcing and influencing?

I don't see Christians forcing anyone to do anything. I see them protesting legislation and speaking out against principles they don't agree with in our government.
But no one is forcing a woman to walk away from an abortion clinic. No one is forcing a kid to pray in school. No one is forcing a kid to even say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. You are not forced to go to church.

I see a lot of influence, however. And there's nothing wrong with influencing legislation based off beliefs. Legislation is proposed based off what people deem is right or wrong. For the majority of Americans who claim a religious background, many of their beliefs of what is considered right or wrong is derived from those beliefs.

It's no different then the Athiest beliefs. Atheists believe there is no God. Based off that premise they continually push for legislation to remove any religious affiliation or significance in our schools, public offices, or have crosses removed from memorial sites on military bases.

Their actions are no different.

And make no mistake...Atheism is a belief, because it cannot absolutely disprove the existence of God based off facts alone.

Agreed. And though i have met my fair share of Christians/Catholics who are egg headed and intolerant, i have met more atheist/agnostics who are as bad if not worse.

imnohero
06-29-2013, 01:37 PM
Laws which restrict choices, benefits, or rights by sanction of one moral philosophy over another, are "forcing." How they come about is immaterial.

TJMAC77SP
06-29-2013, 08:24 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you - by this standard there's no reason at all polygamy should be illegal. I'm just saying it won't happen unless cultural attitudes towards polygamy change radically.



I think you're right - however - I think this increased activity is out of desperation. We're at a demographic tipping point - the zealots realize this, and are trying to use their majorities to shove through as many theocratic laws and policies as they can before that majority shrinks - from elderly voters dying off.

Don't really have any argument on these points

USN - Retired
06-29-2013, 08:47 PM
So what’s to keep straight service members from joining the party? Suppose you have two heterosexual male service members who decide to “tie the knot” and get married, not because they are gay, but to get in on the generous marital housing allowance. They can move out of the barracks and get extra $$$. All they have to do is keep up the front of a happy, gay married couple.

garhkal
06-29-2013, 08:58 PM
Service members have been doing that for years! They've been getting caught, too. Nothing really changed.

Strange, i have not heard/read many stories of folks getting done for that. So even if they have been 'getting caught', nothing seems to be done about it (or the powers that be just decide to keep it under wraps..)

garhkal
06-29-2013, 08:58 PM
Service members have been doing that for years! They've been getting caught, too. Nothing really changed.

Strange, i have not heard/read many stories of folks getting done for that. So even if they have been 'getting caught', nothing seems to be done about it (or the powers that be just decide to keep it under wraps..)

efmbman
06-29-2013, 09:10 PM
So what’s to keep straight service members from joining the party? Suppose you have two heterosexual male service members who decide to “tie the knot” and get married, not because they are gay, but to get in on the generous marital housing allowance. They can move out of the barracks and get extra $$$. All they have to do is keep up the front of a happy, gay married couple.

Service members have been doing that for years! They've been getting caught, too. Nothing really changed.

efmbman
06-29-2013, 09:26 PM
Strange, i have not heard/read many stories of folks getting done for that. So even if they have been 'getting caught', nothing seems to be done about it (or the powers that be just decide to keep it under wraps..)

I can't explain what is or is not reported to the masses. I was in Germany for a total of 8 years - 3 in K-Town and 5 in Grafenwohr. There were plenty of "couples" busted for fake marriages. In my 8 years in Germany, I have personal knowledge of 9 instances... another 4 while I was at Fort Bragg. Believe it or not. Doesn't matter to me.

The point is this: DADT and DOMA being history is probably not going to increase or decrease the frequency of "fake" marriages. That's my opinion. I have no statistical evidence, nor have I done research on this matter. I have not surveyed SJA offices around the military. Good enough? Can I just make a comment on a topic? Does every freaking response to every thread on this forum have to be supported by reams of research, annotated like a Masters thesis?

Measure Man
06-29-2013, 09:34 PM
So what’s to keep straight service members from joining the party? Suppose you have two heterosexual male service members who decide to “tie the knot” and get married, not because they are gay, but to get in on the generous marital housing allowance. They can move out of the barracks and get extra $$$. All they have to do is keep up the front of a happy, gay married couple.

I can't imagine a straight dude getting married to another dude for a few extra bucks

USN - Retired
06-29-2013, 09:35 PM
I can't explain what is or is not reported to the masses. I was in Germany for a total of 8 years - 3 in K-Town and 5 in Grafenwohr. There were plenty of "couples" busted for fake marriages. In my 8 years in Germany, I have personal knowledge of 9 instances... another 4 while I was at Fort Bragg. Believe it or not. Doesn't matter to me

They're usually only caught when they openly admit that the marriage is a fraud.

And they're usually only busted for the marriage fraud when the marriage fraud involves immigration issues. There are some exceptions, but not many.

Only the department of immigration has defined marriage fraud. The military has never really defined marriage fraud. What is marriage fraud? Is a military service member required to "love" his or her spouse? Do we want the military to define "love" in a marriage. How do we determine "love" in a marriage? Is a military service member required to have sex his or her spouse? If yes, then what form should be used to document the sex?

Here's a thought... We have two married couples...

1. couple a - John and Jill. They are in a traditional marriage. They were in love when they got married (or was it just lust?), but they now despise each other. They are staying married now because of the generous military benefits, but they really hate each other.

2. couple b - Bob and Bill. They are two heterosexual male service members who got married, not because they are gay, but to get in on the generous marital housing allowance. They are not gay. Not even close. Bob has a girlfriend, and Bill also has a girlfriend. Bob and Bill do share a house though, and they have been close friends for many years.

Which marriage is the "real" marriage? Do we want the military/government to decide which marriage is the "real" marriage? Where's the fraud? What specific
law(s) are Bob and Bill violating? (assume that there have never been any immigration issues in Bob and Bill's marriage, i.e. Bob and Bill were already US citizens when they got married).

USN - Retired
06-29-2013, 09:46 PM
I can't imagine a straight dude getting married to another dude for a few extra bucks

If it is legal, then why not?

USN - Retired
06-29-2013, 10:05 PM
Anyone who sells out their dignity, of whatever shreds of it they may have, for money, I would gladly make an example of.

And how would you do that?

USN - Retired
06-29-2013, 10:05 PM
Anyone who sells out their dignity, of whatever shreds of it they may have, for money, I would gladly make an example of.

And how would you do that?

Greg
06-29-2013, 10:16 PM
So what’s to keep straight service members from joining the party? Suppose you have two heterosexual male service members who decide to “tie the knot” and get married, not because they are gay, but to get in on the generous marital housing allowance. They can move out of the barracks and get extra $$$. All they have to do is keep up the front of a happy, gay married couple.

Anyone who sells out their dignity, of whatever shreds of it they may have, for money, I would gladly make an example of.

Greg
06-29-2013, 10:35 PM
And how would you do that?

Hmm, good point. It is difficult, embarrassing someone who lacks good character.

garhkal
07-01-2013, 02:06 AM
I can't explain what is or is not reported to the masses. I was in Germany for a total of 8 years - 3 in K-Town and 5 in Grafenwohr. There were plenty of "couples" busted for fake marriages. In my 8 years in Germany, I have personal knowledge of 9 instances... another 4 while I was at Fort Bragg. Believe it or not. Doesn't matter to me.


What branch were you? Maybe that is why you got to hear it more than we did in the navy..


Which marriage is the "real" marriage? Do we want the military/government to decide which marriage is the "real" marriage? Where's the fraud? What specific
law(s) are Bob and Bill violating? (assume that there have never been any immigration issues in Bob and Bill's marriage, i.e. Bob and Bill were already US citizens when they got married). ]
How's about claiming something not legally theirs (the marital benefits since they BOTH have significant others outside the sham marriage they have.

E4RUMOR
07-01-2013, 04:28 AM
Laws which restrict choices, benefits, or rights by sanction of one moral philosophy over another, are "forcing." How they come about is immaterial.

Umm, ok. And? So what? Maybe I think it's immoral to be forced to wear a helmet while riding my motorcyle. Or to wear a seatbelt while driving my car. Perhaps I consider those restrictions on my liberties. It simply doesn't matter what I think. In your eyes they aren't immoral or infringing upon my liberties. In my eyes, maybe they are.

But we see things differently, so who is right in this case?

Apply the same logic with the "choices, benefits, or rights by sanction of one moral philosophy" over another.

Here's how the law really works: It's based off what the majority of society as a whole deems acceptable, and morally right. And with the Federal Government overturning DOMA, as well as many states beginning to legalize gay marriage, your days of attempting to point fingers are coming to an end, and cast blame are coming to an end. Gays, Lesbians, and supporters of this legislation are getting exactly what they want. Ergo the whole argument of religious "stranglehold" will cease to be true.

Dude, all in all, that was a pretty weak comeback. We are all subject to a variety of laws we don't agree with everyday.

Banned
07-01-2013, 04:31 AM
Umm, ok. And? So what? Maybe I think it's immoral to be forced to wear a helmet while riding my motorcyle. Or to wear a seatbelt while driving my car. Perhaps I consider those restrictions on my liberties. It simply doesn't matter what I think. In your eyes they aren't immoral or infringing upon my liberties. In my eyes, maybe they are.

But we see things differently, so who is right in this case?

Apply the same logic with the "choices, benefits, or rights by sanction of one moral philosophy" over another.

Here's how the law really works: It's based off what the majority of society as a whole deems acceptable, and morally right. And with the Federal Government overturning DOMA, as well as many states beginning to legalize gay marriage, your days of attempting to point fingers are coming to an end, and cast blame are coming to an end. Gays, Lesbians, and supporters of this legislation are getting exactly what they want. Ergo the whole argument of religious "stranglehold" will cease to be true.

Dude, all in all, that was a pretty weak comeback. We are all subject to a variety of laws we don't agree with everyday.

I think you missed the point. You're required to wear a helmet because if you don't you might crack your skull open. Nothing to do with Christian mythology - or any other type of mythology - just plain old simple science at work.

Its not a matter of "people disagreeing" - its basing our legal system on a certain mythology just because a large engough majority of people happen to believe it at this particular moment.

imnohero
07-01-2013, 04:58 AM
the "so what" is that is the difference between "influencing" and forcing. you asked. People, and groups, can certainly lobby the government to enact laws. However, the government is not allowed to pass laws which are unconstitutional. DOMA is and was unconstitutional.

I suggest a course or lessons in government and law, you don't seem to know how it "really works."

Banned
07-01-2013, 04:58 AM
Negative. I didn't miss the point. I just see the hypocricy in the arguments. Other people don't.

You have a problem with people proposing legislation or attempting to override legislation based off their personal beliefs derived from their faith. However, if they had no faith, their beliefs would more than likely come from what society accepts or deems as right and wrong.

This is not about what another person believes. It's about what you do not believe. Because you believe that faith is mythology and religion is mythology, you have a problem with anything that comes from such belief. That encompasses creativity, morals, beliefs, ethics... . Ergo, you want to squash it. Yet at the same time, you continually fail to realize that a person's faith is integral in shaping beliefs, morals, and ethics. This, in turn, influences what laws they will approve and oppose.

Just because you do not agree with it, does not make it wrong.

To say that person cannot draw from faith to make decisions in life is un-American, and technically impossible for a person of faith.

I have no objection to a religious person using that religion to make decisions. I have an issue with non-believers being forced to comply to that religion.

E4RUMOR
07-01-2013, 04:59 AM
I think you missed the point. You're required to wear a helmet because if you don't you might crack your skull open. Nothing to do with Christian mythology - or any other type of mythology - just plain old simple science at work.

Its not a matter of "people disagreeing" - its basing our legal system on a certain mythology just because a large engough majority of people happen to believe it at this particular moment.

Negative. I didn't miss the point. I just see the hypocricy in the arguments. Other people don't.

You have a problem with people proposing legislation or attempting to override legislation based off their personal beliefs derived from their faith. However, if they had no faith, their beliefs would more than likely come from what society accepts or deems as right and wrong.

This is not about what another person believes. It's about what you do not believe. Because you believe that faith is mythology and religion is mythology, you have a problem with anything that comes from such belief. That encompasses creativity, morals, beliefs, ethics... . Ergo, you want to squash it. Yet at the same time, you continually fail to realize that a person's faith is integral in shaping beliefs, morals, and ethics. This, in turn, influences what laws they will approve and oppose.

Just because you do not agree with it, does not make it wrong.

To say that person cannot draw from faith to make decisions in life is un-American, and technically impossible for a person of faith.

E4RUMOR
07-01-2013, 05:04 AM
Once again, however, I fail to see any legislation at this time proposed by believers in which a non-believer is "forced" to comply.

E4RUMOR
07-01-2013, 05:17 AM
I have no objection to a religious person using that religion to make decisions. I have an issue with non-believers being forced to comply to that religion.

But it's ok for a religious person to have to comply with legislation which essentially conflicts with their faith, proposed by a non-believer. Gotcha.

E4RUMOR
07-01-2013, 05:19 AM
Once again, however, I fail to see any legislation at this time proposed by believers in which a non-believer is "forced" to comply.

Banned
07-01-2013, 05:51 AM
Once again, however, I fail to see any legislation at this time proposed by believers in which a non-believer is "forced" to comply.

DOMA comes to mind.


But it's ok for a religious person to have to comply with legislation which essentially conflicts with their faith, proposed by a non-believer. Gotcha.

Yup.

E4RUMOR
07-01-2013, 06:18 AM
DOMA comes to mind.



Yup.

DOMA was legislation approved by people of faith and people who subscribed to no particular faith. Furthermore, it's been overturned, so that argument is invalid.

As far as your "Yup" answer. Well, you just proved my point concerning your mindset. You really don't care about equality for everyone.

It's really about your point of view on things. So you just shot holes in all of your past arguments by essentially prescribing to the same "forceful" mindset as those whom you have accused.

Ergo, you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. Noted.

Banned
07-01-2013, 06:35 AM
DOMA was legislation approved by people of faith and people who subscribed to no particular faith. Furthermore, it's been overturned, so that argument is invalid.

First off, DOMA hasn't been completely overturned, only portions of it. Secondly, we still have a long way to go before we've completely defeated the Christian Taliban and completely legalized gay marriage in every state.

Secondly - if we found some Jews who supported Hitler, does that make it okay? Just because there are non-religious people who side with religious discrimination doesn't make it okay.


As far as your "Yup" answer. Well, you just proved my point concerning your mindset. You really don't care about equality for everyone.

It's really about your point of view on things. So you just shot holes in all of your past arguments by essentially prescribing to the same "forceful" mindset as those whom you have accused.

Ergo, you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. Noted.

Yes. You have to comply with the law, even if it goes against your religion. Why? Because people's rights are more important than dogma. You want to be an employer? You got to obey all the laws concerning how you treat your employees, no matter what your religion says about the matter. Same goes for every other case where you have influence on other peoples' rights.

E4RUMOR
07-01-2013, 08:11 AM
First off, DOMA hasn't been completely overturned, only portions of it. Secondly, we still have a long way to go before we've completely defeated the Christian Taliban and completely legalized gay marriage in every state.

Secondly - if we found some Jews who supported Hitler, does that make it okay? Just because there are non-religious people who side with religious discrimination doesn't make it okay.



Yes. You have to comply with the law, even if it goes against your religion. Why? Because people's rights are more important than dogma. You want to be an employer? You got to obey all the laws concerning how you treat your employees, no matter what your religion says about the matter. Same goes for every other case where you have influence on other peoples' rights.

Ok, I don't think you're quite grasping what I'm saying here.

What is the basis of your conviction? Where do you draw your decisions from on what laws to vote "Yes" on and which laws to vote "No" on? Where does Joe Bonham look when establishing his set of morals, convictions, etc.,?

Now what if I told you that I think the place you draw those from are foolish, mythological, etc.,.? What if I flat out disagreed with you? What precedence do I have, much less right to tell you that you're wrong soley based off my own conclusions or the conclusions of others concerning your belief system? I guess under Freedom of Speech, I have every right in the world. However, your belief system or where you draw your conclusions on what is wrong and right are no more valid than anyone else's. That's precisely why we have diversity.

You speak of trampling on other people's rights? I've brought it up before. Why do Atheists push to remove prayer from school, or the Ten Commandments from a Court House? How is it that you cannot simply turn your head from something you do not like, yet advise Christians to do so when it comes to a lifestyle or legislation they do not like? Because it tramples on someone's rights?

Fathom this: If a kid wants to sit at lunch and pray before a meal in school, why is he expelled when it affects absolutely no one but himself? "Oh, because it may offend someone." I mean, no one is forcing you to pray, and you don't have to watch. So why not just look the other way, and mind your own business?

No one is forcing you to read the Commandments in a court house. The Ten Commandments aren't read before a Trial. Why not look the other way? Who cares if they are on a wall?

We're running into circular arguments here. You can't reasonably argue that your push in influencing the law-making process is more valid based off your own set of values than another person regardless of where you or they draw convictions from.

For a group of individuals who preach so much about tolerance, you practice far more intolerance on issues that affect absolutely no one in any direct way. Much the same way you argue that homosexual marriage does not affect anyone in any direct way.

It's blatantly hypocritical.

True tolerance is exercised in all matters - Lifestyle, benefits, human rights, and even practicing one's faith.

It is obvious that you and I are not going to see eye to eye on the issue. However, you have a good head on your shoulders, and you make some logical points which require me to think before responding. I have a respect for your views, and agree with you on some of them, but draw the line in other areas.

Thanks for the feedback.

TJMAC77SP
07-01-2013, 11:38 AM
First off, DOMA hasn't been completely overturned, only portions of it. Secondly, we still have a long way to go before we've completely defeated the Christian Taliban and completely legalized gay marriage in every state.

Secondly - if we found some Jews who supported Hitler, does that make it okay? Just because there are non-religious people who side with religious discrimination doesn't make it okay.



Yes. You have to comply with the law, even if it goes against your religion. Why? Because people's rights are more important than dogma. You want to be an employer? You got to obey all the laws concerning how you treat your employees, no matter what your religion says about the matter. Same goes for every other case where you have influence on other peoples' rights.

Is there a religion which supports same sex marriage?

BTW: I thought the Tea Party was the Christian Taliban?

imnohero
07-01-2013, 12:01 PM
Is there a religion which supports same sex marriage?

BTW: I thought the Tea Party was the Christian Taliban?

Yes and No, to the first question. It depends on how broadly you define "a religion"...Christianity, as generally interpreted, is a no. Some christian churches and denominations are a yes. E.g. The Episcopal Church.

Greg
07-01-2013, 12:25 PM
Ok, I don't think you're quite grasping what I'm saying here.

What is the basis of your conviction? Where do you draw your decisions from on what laws to vote "Yes" on and which laws to vote "No" on? Where does Joe Bonham look when establishing his set of morals, convictions, etc.,?

Now what if I told you that I think the place you draw those from are foolish, mythological, etc.,.? What if I flat out disagreed with you? What precedence do I have, much less right to tell you that you're wrong soley based off my own conclusions or the conclusions of others concerning your belief system? I guess under Freedom of Speech, I have every right in the world. However, your belief system or where you draw your conclusions on what is wrong and right are no more valid than anyone else's. That's precisely why we have diversity.

You speak of trampling on other people's rights? I've brought it up before. Why do Atheists push to remove prayer from school, or the Ten Commandments from a Court House? How is it that you cannot simply turn your head from something you do not like, yet advise Christians to do so when it comes to a lifestyle or legislation they do not like? Because it tramples on someone's rights?

Fathom this: If a kid wants to sit at lunch and pray before a meal in school, why is he expelled when it affects absolutely no one but himself? "Oh, because it may offend someone." I mean, no one is forcing you to pray, and you don't have to watch. So why not just look the other way, and mind your own business?

No one is forcing you to read the Commandments in a court house. The Ten Commandments aren't read before a Trial. Why not look the other way? Who cares if they are on a wall?

We're running into circular arguments here. You can't reasonably argue that your push in influencing the law-making process is more valid based off your own set of values than another person regardless of where you or they draw convictions from.

For a group of individuals who preach so much about tolerance, you practice far more intolerance on issues that affect absolutely no one in any direct way. Much the same way you argue that homosexual marriage does not affect anyone in any direct way.

It's blatantly hypocritical.

True tolerance is exercised in all matters - Lifestyle, benefits, human rights, and even practicing one's faith.

It is obvious that you and I are not going to see eye to eye on the issue. However, you have a good head on your shoulders, and you make some logical points which require me to think before responding. I have a respect for your views, and agree with you on some of them, but draw the line in other areas.

Thanks for the feedback.

As I have posted in the past: Those that are intolerant towards one, only open the door to intolerance towards others.

This intolerance, that occupies their thoughts, is so intense that it blinds them to their own short comings.

TJMAC77SP
07-01-2013, 01:12 PM
Yes and No, to the first question. It depends on how broadly you define "a religion"...Christianity, as generally interpreted, is a no. Some christian churches and denominations are a yes. E.g. The Episcopal Church.

As you said the Episcopal Church is a sect (or denomination) of Christianity. In fact the Episcopal Church is a sect of a sect (and the parent sect of the Episcopal Church has rebuked same for its stance). Get confusing doesn’t it.

I see your point though. For clarity's sake I will redefine my question

Is there any religion (irrespective of individual sects) which condones same-sex marriage?

imnohero
07-01-2013, 01:43 PM
As you said the Episcopal Church is a sect (or denomination) of Christianity. In fact the Episcopal Church is a sect of a sect (and the parent sect of the Episcopal Church has rebuked same for its stance). Get confusing doesn’t it.

I see your point though. For clarity's sake I will redefine my question

Is there any religion (irrespective of individual sects) which condones same-sex marriage?

Yes, Taoism

Pullinteeth
07-01-2013, 02:53 PM
What do you have against it?

Only thing I really have against it is that the jackass with all the wives also had a dozen or so kids and doesn't take care of any of them except the ones he is legally obligated to (the litter his actual wife had-IF those). We the taxpayers are left to foot the bill for the rest.


Would it be fair to say there is a difference between forcing and influencing?

When it comes to government and religion? No. A governement cannot "influence" your choice of religion without the perception of force...


I think you missed the point. You're required to wear a helmet because if you don't you might crack your skull open. Nothing to do with Christian mythology - or any other type of mythology - just plain old simple science at work.

Its not a matter of "people disagreeing" - its basing our legal system on a certain mythology just because a large engough majority of people happen to believe it at this particular moment.

Actually Joe, there isn't as much difference as you might like to think... You are forced to wear a seatbelt/helmet "for your own good." The perception is that they save lives... A Christian might use that exact same argument to legislate religion...it is for your own good...

TJMAC77SP
07-01-2013, 03:18 PM
Yes, Taoism

Assuming you are responding tongue in cheek since that isn't strictly true.

Measure Man
07-01-2013, 03:24 PM
If it is legal, then why not?

I just don't see it happening...most straight guys wouldn't want to explain to some girl they meet that they are married to a man...or to his family, friends, etc.


Only thing I really have against it is that the jackass with all the wives also had a dozen or so kids and doesn't take care of any of them except the ones he is legally obligated to (the litter his actual wife had-IF those). We the taxpayers are left to foot the bill for the rest.

Sounds more like an argument FOR polygamy...if it were legal, he'd be legally obligated to take care of all of them.

imnohero
07-01-2013, 03:45 PM
Assuming you are responding tongue in cheek since that isn't strictly true.

Your right, its not strictly true, but true enough for our purposes I think. Given your broad definition. Buddhism is generally neutral as well, but has several vocal antigay subsets, so I excluded it.

Though historically speaking Tao is an offshoot of Buddhism, I think it is different enough to call it as separate.

TJMAC77SP
07-01-2013, 03:55 PM
Your right, its not strictly true, but true enough for our purposes I think. Given your broad definition. Buddhism is generally neutral as well, but has several vocal antigay subsets, so I excluded it.

Though historically speaking Tao is an offshoot of Buddhism, I think it is different enough to call it as separate.

I have no issue with calling Taoism a separate religion.

Banned
07-01-2013, 04:50 PM
Ok, I don't think you're quite grasping what I'm saying here.

What is the basis of your conviction? Where do you draw your decisions from on what laws to vote "Yes" on and which laws to vote "No" on? Where does Joe Bonham look when establishing his set of morals, convictions, etc.,?

Jesus Christ. Love thy neighbor, treat others the way you want to be treated, etc. This is just common sense, no religious belief necessary.


Now what if I told you that I think the place you draw those from are foolish, mythological, etc.,.? What if I flat out disagreed with you? What precedence do I have, much less right to tell you that you're wrong soley based off my own conclusions or the conclusions of others concerning your belief system? I guess under Freedom of Speech, I have every right in the world. However, your belief system or where you draw your conclusions on what is wrong and right are no more valid than anyone else's. That's precisely why we have diversity.

Because there isn't any mythology or superstition involved. Just plain simple common sense, a social contract. Dogma (like, for example, denying your employees birth control in their health plan) - has no place in modern society.


You speak of trampling on other people's rights? I've brought it up before. Why do Atheists push to remove prayer from school, or the Ten Commandments from a Court House? How is it that you cannot simply turn your head from something you do not like, yet advise Christians to do so when it comes to a lifestyle or legislation they do not like? Because it tramples on someone's rights?

Prayer has not been removed from school. You can pray all day at school if you wish. You just can't force other people to pray to your god. And that isn't just atheists - Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc should not be forced to worship the Christian God.


Fathom this: If a kid wants to sit at lunch and pray before a meal in school, why is he expelled when it affects absolutely no one but himself? "Oh, because it may offend someone." I mean, no one is forcing you to pray, and you don't have to watch. So why not just look the other way, and mind your own business?

If that happens, then guess what - the Atheists - those horrible liberals in the ACLU, will be the first ones to defend that kid, and take the shcool to court!


No one is forcing you to read the Commandments in a court house. The Ten Commandments aren't read before a Trial. Why not look the other way? Who cares if they are on a wall?

Riddle me this - why is a bronze age tribal code - a code that advocates MURDERING YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY if they worship the wrong god - why the hell are we putting that on the courthouse in the first place?


We're running into circular arguments here. You can't reasonably argue that your push in influencing the law-making process is more valid based off your own set of values than another person regardless of where you or they draw convictions from.

For a group of individuals who preach so much about tolerance, you practice far more intolerance on issues that affect absolutely no one in any direct way. Much the same way you argue that homosexual marriage does not affect anyone in any direct way.

It's blatantly hypocritical.

True tolerance is exercised in all matters - Lifestyle, benefits, human rights, and even practicing one's faith.

It is obvious that you and I are not going to see eye to eye on the issue. However, you have a good head on your shoulders, and you make some logical points which require me to think before responding. I have a respect for your views, and agree with you on some of them, but draw the line in other areas.

Thanks for the feedback.

Its actually really simple.

You are free to practice your religion... unless it violates the well being or rights of your fellow humans.

Like I said, really simple. By all means worship your god all day, but don't fuck other people over, and don't force them to conform to your beliefs.

USN - Retired
07-01-2013, 04:55 PM
I just don't see it happening....

25 years ago, that's what most people said about gays serving openly in the military.

25 years ago, that's what most people said about gay marriage.


...most straight guys wouldn't want to explain to some girl they meet that they are married to a man...or to his family, friends, etc..

So are you saying that some heterosexual men would not have a problem with it?

You can move out of the barracks, and you will get a housing allowance. All you have to do is sign the marriage certificate.

Measure Man
07-01-2013, 07:22 PM
25 years ago, that's what most people said about gays serving openly in the military.

25 years ago, that's what most people said about gay marriage.

So are you saying that some heterosexual men would not have a problem with it?

Well, I don't know know of anyone...do you?


You can move out of the barracks, and you will get a housing allowance. All you have to do is sign the marriage certificate.

I guess we'll see...we can argue all day about what some unknown person might or might not do...I don't see the idea of two straight guys getting married for the BAH is a problem worth worrying about.

If this happened, I'd be amazed...if it happened enough to become any kind of real issue, I'll eat my hat.

USN - Retired
07-01-2013, 07:56 PM
Well, I don't know know of anyone...do you?

Give it some time. We'll see it soon.

Pullinteeth
07-01-2013, 07:59 PM
Well, I don't know know of anyone...do you?

I guess we'll see...we can argue all day about what some unknown person might or might not do...I don't see the idea of two straight guys getting married for the BAH is a problem worth worrying about.

If this happened, I'd be amazed...if it happened enough to become any kind of real issue, I'll eat my hat.

I would say that it is POSSIBLE but would never be as common as the practice of a male and female servicemember getting hitched to get the bennies and THAT has been happening for YEARS....

Measure Man
07-01-2013, 08:34 PM
And what is the difference between say a christian at school wanting prayer to be allowed (forcing non believers to listen to it) and athiests wanting all prayer outlawed? Both force someone to comply with what the other wants? So why is it ok for athiests to force their wants on others, and not Christians?

I don't think anyone wants all prayer outlawed.

They want official, sanctioned prayer to stop.

I've never heard of anyone having a problem with an individual silently bowing their head and praying by themselves.

I do find it interesting that many Christians seem to want prayer in the public square when Jesus specifically spoke against it.

garhkal
07-01-2013, 08:47 PM
I have no objection to a religious person using that religion to make decisions. I have an issue with non-believers being forced to comply to that religion.

And what is the difference between say a christian at school wanting prayer to be allowed (forcing non believers to listen to it) and athiests wanting all prayer outlawed? Both force someone to comply with what the other wants? So why is it ok for athiests to force their wants on others, and not Christians?


Once again, however, I fail to see any legislation at this time proposed by believers in which a non-believer is "forced" to comply.

How's about in the form of those churches now needing to marry gays and lesbians?


As I have posted in the past: Those that are intolerant towards one, only open the door to intolerance towards others.

This intolerance, that occupies their thoughts, is so intense that it blinds them to their own short comings.

Well said to both you and E4rumor


If that happens, then guess what - the Atheists - those horrible liberals in the ACLU, will be the first ones to defend that kid, and take the shcool to court!

Not yet heard of any instances of them doing so in situations that are similar..

Banned
07-01-2013, 09:43 PM
And what is the difference between say a christian at school wanting prayer to be allowed (forcing non believers to listen to it) and athiests wanting all prayer outlawed? Both force someone to comply with what the other wants? So why is it ok for athiests to force their wants on others, and not Christians?

Again, Atheists don't want "all prayer outlawed". That is completely false, a lie spread by Christian zealots on Fox News. We simply don't want the government to endorse one religion over another.



Not yet heard of any instances of them doing so in situations that are similar..

Then by all means educate yourself...

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

Banned
07-02-2013, 06:01 AM
Thanks for that link Joe..

No prob. Its not a fact that is too widely known... unfortunately.

garhkal
07-02-2013, 06:02 AM
Thanks for that link Joe..

Banned
07-02-2013, 06:15 AM
Thanks for that link Joe..

No prob. Its not a fact that is too widely known... unfortunately.

Pullinteeth
07-02-2013, 02:32 PM
How's about in the form of those churches now needing to marry gays and lesbians?

There is no requirement for any chruch to marry two homosexuals if they do not wish to do so. Just like there is no requirement for a Catholic church to marry two athiests...


Again, Atheists don't want "all prayer outlawed". That is completely false, a lie spread by Christian zealots on Fox News. We simply don't want the government to endorse one religion over another.

Not all athiests....you certianly seem to lean that way though....as evidenced by the venom you spew at anyone that even hints they believe in a god...

Banned
07-02-2013, 07:59 PM
There is no requirement for any chruch to marry two homosexuals if they do not wish to do so. Just like there is no requirement for a Catholic church to marry two athiests...

Not all athiests....you certianly seem to lean that way though....as evidenced by the venom you spew at anyone that even hints they believe in a god...

I can laugh at religion and show how stupid they are on my own... no government intervention necessary.

garhkal
07-02-2013, 10:09 PM
No prob. Its not a fact that is too widely known... unfortunately.

WEll maybe if the ACLU itself tried to show it has done this, it might help its PR..

GayRights
08-07-2013, 10:26 AM
The fight isn't over. DEERS cannot issue ID cards to same-sex spouses until Sept 3. This is not a legal or policy issue...it's simply the date that the database update will be ready to go "live". Base commanders could grant access and privileges (commissary, exchange, MWR, etc) to same-sex spouses NOW using a modified guest pass, instead of waiting until Sept 3. Technically, they are breaking the law and violating DoD policy by denying base access to all spouses, equally.