Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Valid point and I agree to an extent. But here is the thing, what you stated here actually supports those who voted to repeal the law. How so? Well let's just say a lot of people who are speaking on this topic do not know the full details of what happened and I would encourage everyone to do more research. A key piece to what happened with this process is, the citizens petitioned for a referendum to be enacted for this law, so that the law's standing would be decided by the general population. That in itself overwrote the legislative process that previously took place. That is very much part of the process in which you are referring to, so I would argue that the initial process have been checked much like your example of the Supreme Court. And it could turn out that the Supreme Court may eventually get involved in this matter, but for now, it's very clear that the will of the people deem this law to be unacceptable, checked the legislative process through a process that falls under the Executive Branch.
But isn't the argument being made here, that these things should not be opposed if they are not harming others? Moderator cut: Removing abortion comments
Of course there will be many people who disagree with this, but isn't that the point? That people have no way of subjectively determining what is harmful and what isn't. The very idea that there are people on here who believe that harm is subjective, point to the idea that there is a source, a being, a god or something that determines whether these things are harmful or not, which again points to an absolute truth or an absolute answer to what should be deemed lawful or not.
Because we are a nation of many belief systems there is no singular authority to what is right or wrong. That is the argument being made here by you and others, but if that is the case, then there is no one that should be able to deem how one should vote. Where does it state how individuals should vote? Isn't the idea of determining that someone should not vote based on their personal beliefs subjective ideology?
Moderator cut: Removing abortion comments
Again, please show me where this has happened in this town. The argument with the law isn't that the people are in general supportive of discrimination, it's the fact that it opens the door for other issues and it's too broadly written.
As far as your point, none of these things in anyway present the gospel to these individuals, but voting for these laws do not as well. The gospel is not going to be presented in either instance. If people reject your message because of how you vote, then they aren't looking for truth, they are looking for validation. Know the difference.
I think you should do more research on the law, why it is being rejected and what is happening here. I think the story that the OP has posted is misleading people because of one person's opinion.
When religious beliefs make the decision for others, those others are the ones forced to live with the consequences good or bad. What is good for you doesn't necessarily mean it is good for others.
Moderator cut: Removing abortion comments
If they spent as much time and money on orphanages, welfare for those raising unwanted children, decent education for children that some women didn't want to have, preaching more against divorce which results in higher levels of teen pregnancy and drug use, then they would be acting in a Christian manner.
But this they do not do. In fact, I frequently feel they blame the pregnancy on the mother even if she is a young teenager that the religious right won't allow to obtain birth control.
The same with homosexuality. It is the fault of the person for being "gay," even though their are frequently among men certain vocal aspects that are identifiable. How did they voluntarily choose their voices? There is a growing amount of evidence that the condition of homosexuality is pre-natal. And just like the world is flat belief, the religious right will refuse evidence that is contrary to their pre-conceived world view.
The laws (in very few states) protecting homosexuals are not about legislating against religious freedom. They are about protecting some individuals from religious bigotry. If the only way you can have freedom to practice your religion is to prevent other people from living happy lives then you need to pick another nation to live in. Some Muslim nations still execute homosexuals.
You can be sure you have made god in your own image when he hates all the same people you do.
Last edited by mensaguy; 12-29-2014 at 12:03 PM..
Reason: Removing abortion comments
When religious beliefs make the decision for others, those others are the ones forced to live with the consequences good or bad. What is good for you doesn't necessarily mean it is good for others.
Moderator cut: Removing abortion comments
At this point, you aren't addressing the point, you are attempting to rationalize your reasoning. Your logic is still flawed. You haven't even attempted to address anything that I asked you.
I don't care if it's the religious right or the left or the center, or the north west, if you are arguing that laws should not be determined by personal views and/or religious beliefs, then again I want to know how do we get to the point of changing laws? At some point, someone is using their own personal beliefs to force change, so how do you say that and justify the effort to overturn same-sex marriage bans? Are those not based on personal views? Are those not based on religious views?
I'm not asking you for your personal opinion on a stance, I'm asking you how do you reasonable argue that people, for example like the religious right, can't use their personal beliefs, but other seem to do it, and you don't seem to object to it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
And that is what is unrighteous about the religious right. They are opposed to providing free contraception to underage youth,Moderator cut: Removing abortion comments when that youth and her parents decide it is best for them. The religious right wants to instruct people with what they should do, and then abandon them once they do it.
If they spent as much time and money on orphanages, welfare for those raising unwanted children, decent education for children that some women didn't want to have, preaching more against divorce which results in higher levels of teen pregnancy and drug use, then they would be acting in a Christian manner.
But this they do not do. In fact, I frequently feel they blame the pregnancy on the mother even if she is a young teenager that the religious right won't allow to obtain birth control.
The same with homosexuality. It is the fault of the person for being "gay," even though their are frequently among men certain vocal aspects that are identifiable. How did they voluntarily choose their voices? There is a growing amount of evidence that the condition of homosexuality is pre-natal. And just like the world is flat belief, the religious right will refuse evidence that is contrary to their pre-conceived world view.
What does this have to do with my response????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
The laws (in very few states) protecting homosexuals are not about legislating against religious freedom. They are about protecting some individuals from religious bigotry. If the only way you can have freedom to practice your religion is to prevent other people from living happy lives then you need to pick another nation to live in. Some Muslim nations still execute homosexuals.
You can be sure you have made god in your own image when he hates all the same people you do.
Your point is irrelevant. The law that is in question does not have anything to do with protecting anything religious. You are ranting about points that are irrelevant. It doesn't seem you have a clear concept of what the law actually is that we are discussing here.
Last edited by mensaguy; 12-29-2014 at 12:05 PM..
Reason: Removing abortion comments
Yes, and pre Loving V Virginia any race could marry within their own race. It was the same for all races.
See everyone was equal.
For those reading along who have no idea how things actually work in this country: Loving vs. Virginia (1967) was the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that declared state bans on interracial marriages unconstitutional. It gave interracial couples the right to marry, live together like any other married couple.... and live their lives.
Score another one for the Constitution and civil liberties triumphing over laws written for one reason: to discriminate.
The ONLY acceptable reasons for secular laws are those that are driven by secular interests in the protection of it citizens . . . NOT satisfying anyone's God. The ONLY kinds of laws that should exist are secular laws for secular reasons . . . NONE for theological reasons. What YOUR God thinks is acceptable or not acceptable should have no bearing on secular laws. That you would vote and elect to impose what YOUR God thinks on everyone else is unconscionable. I despise such would-be dictators . . . no matter how many of them there are. Ever heard of the tyranny of the majority???
Quote:
Originally Posted by justtitans
First, how do you determine when someone is voting for 'secular interest' or for their god? The two are not mutually exclusive, so what makes them different?
The issue being voted on determines whether or not it should receive your support. If it is a law supported only because your God supposedly wants it . . . then it is not a secular issue. There has to be a genuine societal motivation for any law . . . NOT merely a theological one.
Quote:
Two, if this were true, then how do laws change? For example, since we are discussing it, same-sex marriage, if people are supposed to vote based on 'secular interest' instead of their god's teachings, then how did same-sex marriage suddenly become acceptable? Society has taught us for years that this is wrong. Decades ago, homosexuals were thought to be mentally ill and were institutionalized for being so, so using what you are saying, how does that change if everyone is basing their views on 'secular interest'?
Mistaken ideas based on society's past ignorance are no reason to continue and remain in ignorance. That is the problem with Christianity. It retains the ancient ignorance of our ancestors as a sign of faith in God promoting a corrupt Gospel that contradicts Christ's agape love for us all.
The issue being voted on determines whether or not it should receive your support. If it is a law supported only because your God supposedly wants it . . . then it is not a secular issue. There has to be a genuine societal motivation for any law . . . NOT merely a theological one.
So how do you know that the individuals who vote that way are voting for thelogical reasons or not? I'm asking you specifically, how do you determine that? You are telling me something we already know. What I am asking you to do, is how do you substantiate your accusation that people do this? Someone can vote a certain way and they never have to ever disclose why they voted the way they did, so how do you know if it was theological reasons or not?
Secondly, who or what states that you cannot vote for theological reasons? Is there some kind of law? Where is this coming from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Mistaken ideas based on society's past ignorance are no reason to continue and remain in ignorance. That is the problem with Christianity. It retains the ancient ignorance of our ancestors as a sign of faith in God promoting a corrupt Gospel that contradicts Christ's agape love for us all.
Okay that's great, but you are deflecting. How do you know an idea is mistaken or ignorant? You would still have to compare it to something outside of societal standards to draw that conclusion. What is the standard if you are suggesting that societal laws can be flawed?
At this point, you aren't addressing the point, you are attempting to rationalize your reasoning. Your logic is still flawed. You haven't even attempted to address anything that I asked you.
I don't care if it's the religious right or the left or the center, or the north west, if you are arguing that laws should not be determined by personal views and/or religious beliefs, then again I want to know how do we get to the point of changing laws? At some point, someone is using their own personal beliefs to force change, so how do you say that and justify the effort to overturn same-sex marriage bans? Are those not based on personal views? Are those not based on religious views?
I'm not asking you for your personal opinion on a stance, I'm asking you how do you reasonable argue that people, for example like the religious right, can't use their personal beliefs, but other seem to do it, and you don't seem to object to it?
What does this have to do with my response????
Your point is irrelevant. The law that is in question does not have anything to do with protecting anything religious. You are ranting about points that are irrelevant. It doesn't seem you have a clear concept of what the law actually is that we are discussing here.
So what in your view is the societal advantage to removing laws made to protect people from prejudice against sexual orientation? What "good" occurs for the nation because this is done?
Why wouldn't we remove laws that protect people from racial prejudice? Wouldn't that provide the exact same kind of good?
What good comes from banning same sex marriage? How is society helped? Who is hurt? It is an extremely selfish position. How many more years is it necessary to keep some people from enjoying the same things you do?
Maybe we need a constitutional amendment banning ALL religion, all public practice of religion, all religious institutions. That would be "fair" in the same sense you believe your own position is "fair." The difference is--you would be impacted. And guess what--you could still practice your faith "in the closet," and nobody would care. Because that's what you want homosexuals to do.
Maybe we need a constitutional amendment banning ALL religion, all public practice of religion, all religious institutions. That would be "fair" in the same sense you believe your own position is "fair." The difference is--you would be impacted. And guess what--you could still practice your faith "in the closet," and nobody would care. Because that's what you want homosexuals to do.
There ya go! Let the Christians be the people in the closet. You're running on all eight cylinders today, Pastor. (Not that you aren't always but... you must be using high-octane premium petrol today.) We can all go into the closet and, instead of complaining about the gays marrying the people they love or the transgenders using a bathroom (like everyone else on the planet) or getting our knickers in a knot every time someone gay sneezes we can go into the closet. I read a book where a chap (he was the central character in the second half and was quite compelling) talked about going into the closet. Something about praying... wait.... it will come to me in a minute....hold on. I know it wasn't about the gays going into the closet it was definitely about the Christians going into the closet...
The issue being voted on determines whether or not it should receive your support. If it is a law supported only because your God supposedly wants it . . . then it is not a secular issue. There has to be a genuine societal motivation for any law . . . NOT merely a theological one. Mistaken ideas based on society's past ignorance are no reason to continue and remain in ignorance. That is the problem with Christianity. It retains the ancient ignorance of our ancestors as a sign of faith in God promoting a corrupt Gospel that contradicts Christ's agape love for us all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justtitans
So how do you know that the individuals who vote that way are voting for thelogical reasons or not? I'm asking you specifically, how do you determine that? You are telling me something we already know. What I am asking you to do, is how do you substantiate your accusation that people do this? Someone can vote a certain way and they never have to ever disclose why they voted the way they did, so how do you know if it was theological reasons or not?
Secondly, who or what states that you cannot vote for theological reasons? Is there some kind of law? Where is this coming from?
Okay that's great, but you are deflecting. How do you know an idea is mistaken or ignorant? You would still have to compare it to something outside of societal standards to draw that conclusion. What is the standard if you are suggesting that societal laws can be flawed?
I can't control why someone votes. But WHAT they vote for will determine if it is a secular interest being protected or a theological one. Regrettably, people will vote for things they think their God wants in a vain effort to force others to follow their God's wishes. It is frustrating and annoying . . . but I have no idea how to stop it other than education. There are and have been absurd laws on the books based on theological nonsense. We have very slowly and painstakingly been digging our society out from under such nonsense. We still have a long way to go . . . as this SSM issue reveals.
Where this is coming from is the Spirit of agape love who IS God. You tenaciously refuse to see it and pretend it is just my personal preference. But agape love has been thoroughly described and is unambiguous in ! Cor 13, the Sermon on the Mount, and Galatians 5. It is a clear and absolute standard against which to test the Spirit behind ANY dogma or doctrine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
