For anyone who opposes same-sex marriage

Yep, that's exactly what gets said here on a daily basis by the usual suspects. It's indicative of a deeply embedded disrespect toward others, and why I've given up on some people at PF. The more one tries to engage them, the more entrenched they become. Simply not worth it, and that's why I've used the ignore feature on several. My doing so isn't usually based on one or a few posts, unless the person is really far gone, in which case I don't even bother talking to them at all. In most cases, it's a decision based on observing a longstanding pattern of behavior that shows no signs of changing.

To engage in a meaningful discussion, there has to exist some base level of respect. There simply isn't any in the case at hand. I'm never going to persuade someone who has such a deep disrespect for me that they don't actually hear or process anything that I say, manifested in them constantly resorting to condescension, insult, baiting, etc.

I've been trying to be 'slower on the trigger', such that I'm now only ignoring people who I intend to NEVER engage again - because that's how offended I am by their behavior in the forum.

 

You're right, these people are probably never going to change their minds... and I'm obviously wasting my breath. But it at least gives us the opportunity to get OUR arguments right so we can talk to the people who are likely to change their minds. That's how we won in 4 states - talking to people. Most people are horribly misinformed about gays and gay marriage but that's quickly changing. November 6th was the watershed moment for same-sex marriage and shows us the way forward in states like Oregon, Hawaii, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey and Rhode Island. I think by 2016 those states will easily have SSM, and states like Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Nevada and Pennsylvania may have passed civil union legislation. If DOMA gets repealed though Civil Unions will become inherently unpopular and the only real option will be full same-sex marriage.

 

Not so much for your stance against the gay men, but for your stance against people of faith, yes.

No need to debate something that has already been proved.

Okay, so students receive grant money and then use it for the University of their choice and that is receiving federal funding? It is the student who received the grant, not the school. Oh, I forgot, democrats are also against school choice. Anyway, you and the article are just making a false potrayal of the facts. Are you suggesting that students now be denied Pell grants based on the religious beliefs of the people who own the schools they attend?

Is being evangelical does not necessarily mean notorious unless I guess you are a liberal democrat who hates people of faith. But that would be a biggoted view now wouldn't it?

And there we have it. Proof that you are more than willing to dictate to people of various faiths that they are no longer allowed to believe in thier long held religious beliefs. Proof that you are more than willing to stomp on the first amendment right to freedom of religion. They are closing them down themselves because the government threatens to fine them and throw them in jail if they fail to comply with the new laws. They government isn't taking away funding from the orphanages, but from the orphans because they happen to be in a religious institution. This is money which the orphan would be granted to the child if it were in a foster home or in the custody of the state. It is used to house, care for, and feed the child. So to say the "institutions" receive government funds is the same false dicotomy as the above argument as the school argument above.

I have heard that more people are pro-life now. So if the majority supported shooting gays on site, I guess that would make it okay, right? See here is the problem with the ad populum falacy, just because it is popular does not make it right.

Um, did I mention that congress has the right to pass laws which ensure enforcement of the Constitution, or was that another thread? At any rate, I think I mention that congress has passed many laws which adresses those issues and yet you act as though those laws do not exist.

Did I say apples and oranges on this same argument earlier also? Being gay is not the same as being black.

Again you fail to persuade especially when mischaracterizing my points of view.

States don't have the right to redefine marriage, not for their citizenry, nor their own state, nor other states, nor for the federal government. I do not have any idea where you see that right in the 10th Amendment.

I have been over the Full Faith and Credit clause with other liberals who refuse to even pretend to understand (or are actually too inept to understand). I see no need to try to explain the obvious to intrangent minds so I won't bother to take the debate in this direction any further.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...tic-partys-record-race-43.html#post1061946198

 

I'm sorry, I didn't see the current scientific research showing that homosexuality is normal. I am not the first one to refer to homosexuality as peverse, and I won't be the last. It is a widely held view, even by those who support gay marriage that it is perverse, though they won't tell you that to your face. My panties are not in a bind, I was just merely pointing out that when you start of with insults you have probably lost the argument. When I say that homosexuality is peverted or abnormal, it is simply a statement of fact, not an intentional slight.

I'm not a mental health professional, so I don't want to get into the specifics of homosexuality and the treatment of their afliction, I just point out well known facts.

Oh I've been through this before. The guy who wrote the book on gay not being a mental disease, became a big icon of the homosexual movement, then changed his mind and then said it could be curable, then was later pressured into reversing his findings again under the pressure of the LGBT community. Do I really have to research that one again?

Whatever. We'll see what the courts say.

Mostly because it was not necessary to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman any more that it was necessary to define a horse as a four legged animal used for transportation, or to define a chair or a table or a desk. Most people have a basic grasp of what words mean. Words mean something. Marriage means something. But there have been mention of it in law way back.

Yet you voted for him and did not protest his stand against gay marriage when he ran in '08.

Most people could not tell you what his stance is on same sex marriage. The press hardly made any deal about this major flip flop of course only proving once again how in the tank the press is for obama.

Yeah, I know you can't see it because you are so blinded by you own bigotry that you don't know what you are doing to people who believe in their religious doctrines. By your own admission you don't have a problem with discriminating against institutions or individuals based on their religious beliefs, yet cannot see how you are first amendment rights are being trodden upon.

It won't be the Christian retaliating Hitler/Middle Eastern syle, it will be your leftist/liberal/socialist friends who turns on you.

 

What hypocrisy! You have no respect for people of faith and you demonstrate a total disregard for their first amendment rights.

What you people don't understand is that this is not personal. We are fighting for our country and our constitution.

 

DOMA LIMITS the federal government involvement in personal relationships by limiting that involvement to heterosexual couples, in order to reduce the number of single mothers on their own, providing and caring for their children and increase the # of children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home. AND KEEP government involvement out of the showering gays with tax breaks and governmental entitlements, so they can feel better about themselves business. .

 

They think they are clever when they mischaracterize you opinion to be 180 degrees opposite of what it truly is. Don't try to explain to them the simple reality, they are intransigent.

 

People of faith? You mean like people who believe in God/Jesus and all things spiritual? So I don't believe in God or have "faith" according to you because I support same-sex marriage, and that also makes me bigoted against "people of faith"?

Show me one thing I've said that can be construed as "bigoted" against religious people short of my support for same-sex marriage... because if you think that alone equals bigotry you're absolutely raving mad. And tell me why the views of mainstream Christianity trumps the religious freedom of a minority of religious groups who wish to be allowed to marry same-sex couples in their churches and have those legally recognised like opposite sex marriages? Do they not have First Amendment rights?

That's an arrogant tone. I have solid reasons for not favouring polygamy and I have already laid a few of them out, and those are reasons that have diddly squat to do with same-sex marriage, hence two completely different issues. And that's all I'm going to say on the matter in this topic - the offer is still there for a separate debate if you want.

Not at all, simply that if the university in question accepts a student with grant money (and is hence being funded by taxpayer dollars), they should abide by the law when it comes to equal treatment of gay people. Is that really a shock/horror! thing for you people?

Are you kidding me? Liberty Christian Academy, the university set up by the late Jerry Falwell who blamed 9/11 on gay people and said that the attacks were "probably deserved", not notorious? I'd imagine that when the vast majority of Americans think of a religious school or college this would be the first one to spring to mind. Not that there's anything wrong with the educational standard at the school (except maybe science...), but CLEARLY Falwell's legacy leaves an unfortunate stain on it.

As I said before, as many religious adoption agencies and care homes receive federal funding, they should not be exempt from the law. There is no justification for closing down and making children suffer just because they don't want to place the odd kid with a same-sex family. It's not like them doing that would amount to a "sin" on their behalf anyway - the Bible doesn't say that it is forbidden to allow a child to be raised by a same-sex couple. I doubt Jesus himself would have had a problem with it. The reasons they do not wish to put orphans with same-sex couples are merely ideological/political as opposed to a ACTUAL requirement by their religion. They are only playing the First Amendment card because it's something to hide behind, and that's sad. And what's sadder is that they are actually more than willing to let kids be put out and moved around simply because they put their awful ideologies before their actual jobs - which is to find loving homes for kids with no parents. They close down literally on purpose as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy to try and convince the public that they were "forced" to do so when really it's just because they can't stand gay people.

Oh my god... apples and oranges. We're talking about the majority having a say on where their tax dollars go. If a majority support same-sex marriages then I doubt they'd be too hot on funding organisations that actively exclude gay people and deny them equal rights and coverage.

I also find it amusing that the Right after many decades of touting their majority status are now doubling down on the "just because the majority support it doesn't make it okay", it's deliciously ironic.

What this has to do with interracial marriage, women's rights and desegregation not being mentioned in the Constitution I'm not exactly sure... So I ask: how is it you reconcile an originalist view of the Constitution as it was written and intended with cases like Loving V Virginia (legalised interracial marriage) and Brown V Board of Education (ended segregation)? And no, that race is mentioned for the purpose of emancipation and voting rights isn't the same as permitting either of the aforementioned, which is why the Equal Protection Clause was cited - the very same part of the Constitution that's being cited in the federal cases against DOMA.

You CANNOT call yourself an "originalist" while supporting the SCOTUS decisions in Loving and Brown, period.

We do not know whether or not people are born gay but scientific research has pointed to some biological factors, but I think given the history of discrimination and hate suffered by gay people and continuing disadvantage politically in most states, it's enough to confer a suspect class status under the provisions of the Equal Protection clause. That's what numerous federal courts have ruled, and that's what I believe the Supreme Court will rule.

I've heard people say that homosexuality is defined by actions unlike being black, which is why it's different. And I somewhat agree, BUT... it wouldn't be the first time something that is purely action-based has been found unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment: interracial marriage. This is action-based just like same-sex marriage. People CHOOSE to marry a member of the same sex in the same way people CHOOSE to marry a person of a different colour.

Nope, just pointing out the sheer hypocrisy in you saying that you believe in the Constitution as written yet seem to be just fine with the rulings on interracial marriage and desegregation, despite those being nowhere to be found in the Constitution (just like us gay "perverts")....

Actually marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and Congress technically only has the power to regulate that which is permitted by the Constitution. Since there is no mandate that America must be moral and respect the will of religion, there is NOTHING to say that states cannot define marriage as they see fit. That has always been the case - marriage law varies from state to state and there are those who believe federal benefits shouldn't even exist in the first place.

 

First you say "normal"... care to elaborate on what that word means to you? As I understand it normal means "regular" and in that most basic sense homosexuality IS abnormal. Socially speaking "normal" being used interchangeably with "right" and abnormal "wrong" has nothing to do with science. Neither definitions do. It has nothing to do with scientific research. Poor choice of wording?

And I think anyone who thinks homosexuality is perverse but supports full equality under the law is kind of odd, but it shows that not everyone who thinks being gay is wrong are willing to force their views on society.

Homosexuality is abnormal in a sense because it's not what most people do - so that's a half truth.

Homosexuality being perverted as in "unacceptable" is merely your opinion, and it's usually when people go around stating their opinions as facts that you realise they have no real argument or they're simply losing. Just thought you should know.

Lol "affliction"... this just keeps getting better and better. (*)(*)(*)(*) right you're not a mental health professional. Needless to say you wouldn't be welcome in any professional organisations if you were. I wonder who in society apart from the lunatics in the Christian Right actually agree with these... *ahem* "well known facts"...

The quality of this debate is really going down hill now with your declaration of opinions as unquestionable fact, despite you having not provided any evidence other than citing the APA's position some 50 years ago.

I can hardly wait. Kennedy has a 100% pro-gay rights record and having authored the majority opinions of the two SCOTUS rulings on gay and lesbian rights: Romer and Lawrence, it's looking very likely that we'll see DOMA Section 3 stricken. And let's face it, even if it's upheld by the court it's still doomed. Should it fail to be overturned judicially it's only a matter of time before the Respect for Marriage Act repeals and replaces DOMA, which would protect other states from recognising SSM while giving federal benefits to same-sex couples who have legally tied the knot in their states. It's inevitable, and we're never going to stop pushing for it, as well as marriage equality. Ever.

It being "necessary" or not has nothing to do with whether or not Congress actually has the power to define it nationally. DOMA Section 3 is entitled "definition of marriage". Where the hell does the Constitution give them the authority to do that?

How do you know I voted for him? I certainly supported him because I knew he was pro-SSM really, just like many people knew that Romney is in fact pro-life. Obama ran in '08 on a platform of repealing DOMA, repealing DADT, passing ENDA and other gay-rights issues. I think most people were sufficiently switched-on enough to see he was pro-SSM in all but name. Nearly every politician does that crap to win elections.

Actually I remember reading many, many a-time that Obama was for SSM before he was against it. So the information was out there, and actually the Right including FOX News did use it to attack him. It simply wasn't enough however to sway public opinion or damage him politically. Not a lot has been able to actually... surprisingly.

You didn't even answer my question... Is a teacher who is forced to teach a gay student and objects for "religious reasons" having his or her First Amendment rights violated? I like how you pick and choose what to concentrate on and where YOU think the line should be drawn.

And also - what about the numerous religious denominations and churches who want the right to be able to sanctify same-sex marriages with legal recognition just like they can with heterosexual couples, where are their First Amendment rights?

Perhaps nows the time we realised this whole link between church and state and giving religious institutions the right to sanctify civil marriages is a crock of (*)(*)(*)(*)...

 

I'm getting tired of this point by point exchange. Like I said earlier, there is nothing I can say that will pursuade you nor you, me. I will say that your post pretty much proves my points. You ask me to point out what you have said that is biggoted, then go on to explain your biggoted views as to why Christians beliefs that run contrary to laws you wish to impose upon them must abide by them irrespective of their long held religious beliefs. I don't want to get drawn into debates regarding whether or not gays or born that way, or on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, because those are long drawn out arguments that I have been through before.

 

That's exactly how the pro-SSM people feel.

 

So in other words you give up, despite having suggested I had lost the argument because you incorrectly believed I was insulting you. Well okay then. At least answer my main questions:

A teacher who doesn't want to teach a gay student citing religious reasons, is his or her First Amendment rights being violated?

A pro-gay religious group wanting to perform same-sex marriages, are their First Amendment rights being violated?

 

Again, more religious intollerance on display. This post demonstrates your total disregard for the first amendment right of freedom of religion. As for what give congress the right to pass laws of any sort to include how to define marriage is included in the Full Faith and Credit Clause as well as Article 1 Section 8.

 

These seem to be issues which are tangential to the debate at hand. I don't think we need to derail the thread on these hypothetical questions which don't apply to the crux of the issue.

 

....

You don't want to even think about it because you know that the first example is patently unreasonable, yet I'm sure it has happened. A response may be "teaching a gay person isn't a sin" - and to that I would say, neither is placing a child in a same-sex couple's care. And you brought the adoption agency issue up as an example of religious freedom being trampled on. I think what is going on is confusion between ideology/politics and actual religious requirements. The fact of the matter is that Catholic adoption agencies aren't being forced to do anything the Bible tells them not to. They are simply towing the line of the Vatican which has been known to constantly change its positions.

The fact is you KNOW my questions are perfectly on-topic examples. I simply want to know how far you think First Amendment rights go. You say you believe in the Constitution "as written" so it's a very pertinent line of discussion. You really have copped this one out haven't you?

 

See, you just keep accusing me and others of the same things over and over. You've used the word "bigot" what, 20 times now? Change the record man.

And please explain how Full Faith and Credit gives the federal government to right to define marriage...

 

Edit: Double post

 

That only happens if the hetero couple is negligent or abusive.

It shouldn't be news to anyone that you guys are all about feelings. That's why the truth is your enemy.

 

yguy... block. Block... yguy.

I have no time for trolls, as temporarily entertaining as you were... It got old.

 

They don't need full faith and credit. They already have the authority to define who is and is not entitled to federal tax breaks and entitlements. States are free to define marriage any way they like.

 

Baiting, ignored.

 

I'm holding you to that.

 

I would explain it but heck, I'm not your teacher nor am I qualified, I am not an attorney. Why don't you use Google and look it up. I've had this discussion in the past, and it is boring and unproductive. But if gay people are so into states rights now, why are you for Roe v Wade?

 

standard practice.... when in doubt.... call them a name and try to dismiss their views that way.

Label a private business that supports traditional marraige, predjudiced, or bigotted and try to smear them in the public eye so their business is hurt. It's a bully tactic

 

Patriot, it's telling that whenever I make a request for you to elaborate on a point you backtrack saying "I'm not a qualified [insert relevant profession here]". You don't have to be a lawyer or a doctor to have some basic grasp of the issues - which is leading me to believe you're just repeating claims you've heard from others without actually knowing anything about them.

You also repeatedly jump the gun and assume I'm this or that - you assumed I voted for Obama, you're assuming I'm not a person "of faith" myself, and now you're assuming I support Roe V Wade - which is actually a fair example, but it's amusing that when I've given examples to try and find inconsistencies in YOUR logic you've simply sideswept them as going off-topic.

In short, my points are as follows (consider it a summary of all my arguments to date):

- First Amendment rights should not be used to defend ideological or political viewpoints. If it can't be shown that there's a tangible religious requirement to do/not do something (which quite honestly doesn't always qualify for it either, since Muslim religious requirements certainly aren't honoured 100% under law) then it has no merit and nothing - I repeat NOTHING - to do with 1st Amendment rights. It's meant to defend the rights of churches not to be told what to do by the state; a private school, adoption agency, care home or hospital doesn't qualify as a church since they are in the business of serving society with crucially important services - education, healthcare, childcare - which the government has a right to regulate. You can't dismiss all aspects of the law when you have made the decision to render services beyond the church.

- That you cannot claim the mantra of "believing in the Constitution as written and intended" while supporting the decisions handed down from the Supreme Court that legalised interracial marriage and ended segregation in the United States, simply because that's not what was in or intended by any of the Amendments passed "by Republicans". Both relied on the equal protection clause despite opponents arguing that anti-miscegenation laws and segregation apply EQUALLY and no violation of the 14th's equal protection clause is anywhere to be found. So if you support that interpretation, why are you shocked that numerous federal courts that have already struck down DOMA on that same basis? Remember that interracial marriage is action based just like same-sex marriage.