| Author |
Message |
    
Sifo
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2013 - 10:18 pm: | 
|
I fail to see the logic here. Governments promote behavior that offend someone's religious sensibilities every day. Seldom does it have anything to do with the First Amendment.
I'd be curious to hear an example of what you are talking about. I've brought up the example of SS survivor benefits many times. It's not a problem when a marriage isn't against someones religion. When a marriage is against someones religion, as is the case in gay marriage, then the survivor of that marriage is entitled to tax dollars simply because that marriage has happened. These are tax dollars that come from people who have religious objections to gay marriage. Some gay rights groups are claiming 1049 benefits such as this that they say they want. These benefits all come from tax dollars paid for by people who object to supporting gay marriage on religious grounds. Where does the logic break down. It's very simple. It's not at all unlike asking a Catholic organization to pay for abortions. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, April 15, 2013 - 11:08 pm: |
|
Ok, I see your point on the grounds that tax dollars are going to people who's relationship, legally/sexually, is offensive to your religion.
I wonder if that argument is being used in the cases before the Supreme Court?
I won't comment on your faith, not knowing it's exact rules.
I'm on record as opposing the imposition of religion on others, as much as I must support your worship as YOU see fit. ( an' it harm none, do what ye will )
I'm also aware of centuries of tradition of Church influence in lawmaking. Often, ironically, the Churchmen and the Wicked will both attempt to convince the town council-Congress to make illegal the sins each have stake in.
Many laws, from blue laws on alcohol to sexual deviancy laws, are directly handed to us by religious influence.
IMHO we are in some danger of loss of freedom from the imposition of religious restrictions as law, not personal belief.
As far as Sex stuff goes, I say draw a hard fast line at "Consenting Adults" and leave it at that. I feel that's an important line, and while you can argue that it's a religious thing, as much as distaste for shellfish, It seems rationally justified to me. Agree?
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Robert A. Heinlein
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/roberta he169539.html#ViuGlxbkvWJa6kPB.99
I do get your point on paying for other's lifestyles. Strikes me that your objections are based on the unfairness of the Social Democracy aspects of government dependency and intrusion. Dang. I pay those too. Got different bitches. Carbon tax, for example is just religious tithing...... |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 12:27 am: |
|
Patrick,
I don't see any circular logic in Dr. Craig's argument, just a clear gender-specific definition of marriage and the logical proof showing that it has nothing to do with sexuality and thus is entirely non-discriminatory with respect to any sexuality.
Elementary. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 09:54 am: |
|
"And so does the majority."
And if I vote, along with more friends than you have, to make stealing your wallet legal?
Thank God we live in a Republic where such democratic "will of the people' nonsense is not allowed. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 10:57 am: |
|
Ok, I see your point on the grounds that tax dollars are going to people who's relationship, legally/sexually, is offensive to your religion.
I wonder if that argument is being used in the cases before the Supreme Court?
I won't comment on your faith, not knowing it's exact rules.
I'm on record as opposing the imposition of religion on others, as much as I must support your worship as YOU see fit. ( an' it harm none, do what ye will )
I'm also aware of centuries of tradition of Church influence in lawmaking. Often, ironically, the Churchmen and the Wicked will both attempt to convince the town council-Congress to make illegal the sins each have stake in.
Many laws, from blue laws on alcohol to sexual deviancy laws, are directly handed to us by religious influence.
IMHO we are in some danger of loss of freedom from the imposition of religious restrictions as law, not personal belief.
As far as Sex stuff goes, I say draw a hard fast line at "Consenting Adults" and leave it at that. I feel that's an important line, and while you can argue that it's a religious thing, as much as distaste for shellfish, It seems rationally justified to me. Agree?
So now that you see the point I'm making, I'll draw a very clear distinction between what I'm talking about and all the examples of laws with religious pressure behind them. The gay marriage example forces people to support with tax dollars what their religious beliefs tell them is forbidden. That is the government FORCING them to take a positive action that is against their beliefs. That is a violation of the first amendment. All the examples you provide are examples where people are prohibited, to some degree, from acting in ways that some people find against their beliefs. As long as those prohibitions don't prevent you from practicing your religion, and from what I can see they don't, there's no first amendment conflict.
Having said that, I don't personally like most of the examples you provided, and would personally vote to undo them, but I don't see any Constitutional issues with them.
As for my personal religious beliefs, Christian would sum it up, but I've had more than my fill of organized religion. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 11:25 am: |
|
I'm sure there are multiple examples of religious laws costing you in taxes.
Practically all the "entitlement" programs fall under that category.
Without those programs we wouldn't have a national debit or debt. War is cheaper. ( The ENTIRE war in the Pacific in WW2 was cheaper than ONE YEAR of Obama overspending. Not spending. Debit. )
I suppose you could say they exist as naked ambition and vote buying by simply evil men, who use the charitable religious examples and rationalizations to amass great power, impose their wills, and sustain dependency for control.
As someone who's had their fill of organized religion, you must see that a great deal of "legitimate" Churches fall under the above definition.
As an example, see the state of culture for African descended Americans, the 70% illegitimacy, high percentage in prison, lack of Religious life, ( other than liberation theology fake/perversion Christian ) and high government dependence. This is a preview of "the new normal".
It's a result of over a century of "well intentioned" laws and programs that in their results are indistinguishable from a deliberate program to "keep the ex slaves on the plantation".
After all, if your racist goal was to destroy black families, imprison as many as possible and encourage the maximum number of abortions, welfare cases, and black on black crime, what would you have done different than Congress over the last century?
The Perversion of Religious teachings for gain, revenge, power, can be hard to tell from "well meaning" efforts of mistaken good folk.
Are we at least agreed on holding a line at "consenting adults"? |
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 11:57 am: |
|
Aesquire,
I agree with most everything you said in that last post. Still it seems that there is one spot where we are failing to reach an agreement.
I'm sure there are multiple examples of religious laws costing you in taxes.
While I don't doubt the accuracy of that statement, it has little to do with where I have an objection with gay marriage. A law isn't wrong simply because it has a basis in religion. I have not doubt that many examples of good laws can be pointed to that have a basis in religion. Perhaps, though shall not kill? No doubt that enforcement of that one costs us all tax dollars too. Still, I think it's a sound law. I don't believe that "though shall not kill" violates any religions beliefs though. That is where gay marriage gets into trouble. It is asking for tax payers to pay benefits for gay marriages AND it violates some peoples religious beliefs. Fix either side of that equation and you can probably make a law that might be workable, but this isn't the goal of those promoting gay marriage. |
Two_seasons
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 06:50 pm: |
|
Marriage is defined by God himself. Our gov't did not create marriage. But it sure has stuck it's nose in it over the years.
Currently my pastor can speak freely about homosexuality, but what will happen to our rights as Christians, speaking on this matter, from the pulpit or on a soapbox on a street corner? Will our legal system, if this stands up in court, condemn and fine those that speak out against what our Bible says this is? Will pastors and citizens be put in jail for their beliefs if those beliefs counter the homosexual?
Canada currently does this! Pastors are fined and jailed up there for relaying what God says in His word.
If I don't agree with your positions on any issue, I don't push the police or the gov't to shut you up. Or lock you up. Or fine you or your organizations. Will you stand with me and allow all of us to have the right of free speech, to practice the First Amendment?
God says same-sex anything is an abomination. I believe He is right. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 08:14 pm: |
|
Two seasons, I share your concerns about freedom of speech. Canada is going down a very scary road. "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." can be either a high minded statement of goodwill, or a taste of future law. ( to offer the complete quote, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims." )
This bothers ME more than the topic here, YMMV.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&load=8281&mpid=84 |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 09:05 pm: |
|
>>> God says same-sex anything is an abomination.
Really? I think same sex most anything except for the actual sexual behavior is ok. I've done same sex hunting, same sex fishing, even same sex motorcycle riding. Just today I did some same sex math. No integrals though. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 09:58 pm: |
|
Differentials? |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 10:40 pm: |
|
I've been same sex motorcycling with Blake. That's how we came to drink from the same vessel and be married in some cultures.  |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 11:36 am: |
|
"Marriage" is a tax construct for revenue and culling.
And men are catching on , and opting the F* out of it.
To the extent that the government has to get their revenue from importing families through lax immigration enforcement, and propping up the idea of the widget of same sex marriage.
It is a bad and broken cycle; one I refuse to participate in the US arena of law and jurisdiction.
MGTOW |
|
