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.
It has been enforced in all 50 states. Same sex couples can legally get married in any state.
I understand, and I support letting same sex couples get married. The part about "requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriage" was where I was thinking it would be violence because they'd use force against states who disobey that command, but I'm now realizing that the whole concept of states is muddying it up.
It would be violence if an individual doesn't want to do the marriage ceremony and is forced to comply...but if it's just a law saying that same sex couples can get married then its kind of redundant isn't it? Why does there need to be a "law" saying people are allowed to do something? You wouldn't need a law to tell people they're allowed to eat pizza or something.
I understand, and I support letting same sex couples get married. The part about "requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriage" was where I was thinking it would be violence because they'd use force against states who disobey that command, but I'm now realizing that the whole concept of states is muddying it up.
It would be violence if an individual doesn't want to do the marriage ceremony and is forced to comply...but if it's just a law saying that same sex couples can get married then its kind of redundant isn't it? Why does there need to be a "law" saying people are allowed to do something? You wouldn't need a law to tell people they're allowed to eat pizza or something.
The case was about state marriage licenses. They were being denied to same sex couples. The state doesn't license who can or can not legally eat pizza.
Laws are not always violent punishments. Voting is not a cruel & unusual punishment. ... & as No Recess says, following common sense laws is on Page 2 of the Social Contract.
Religions & religious communities sometimes use societal pressure & shaming, taken to the extreme it's theocracy.
One day I'm going to ask you to
A. Produce a copy of the social contract and
B. Show me where I signed it
That should keep you busy for...well...the rest of your life.
Laws are always violent. It's the definition of a law in an involuntary society:
Do/don't do X or else you'll be fined, caged, or murdered.
Get out a state statute book. Offenses are defined along with outlined penalties.
Sexual "orientation" is not protected at all. Only in the most recent times
have most laws changed. It was perfectly Constitutional for over 200 years
of this nation's history to "discriminate against" sexual "orientation".
Not only in marriage, but the acts themselves were illegal in various ways,
and to varying degrees. Just like pornography was considered obscene and
not protected as "free speech". Is that what I'd like to return to ? Yes.
It's actually still not protected. It is currently only protected by 20 individual states who have their own laws protecting sexual orientation, but not nationally.
It's justified by these people who believe "intolerance of intolerance is justified." It comes from a position that believes since homosexuals are having their rights restricted, those who turn away the business of gays citing their religious beliefs have to be bigots and going after them is justified. This completely disregards that those on the other side also have rights under attack.
While you might not agree with them, there is also protection for people to practice their religion freely. New laws aimed at reinforcing these rights rooted in the First Amendment are now under attack by not just individuals, but corporations who misrepresent these laws as those whose intent is to legalize open discrimination.
In short, tolerance is only given to one group of people because the others are represented as bigots and intolerance towards them and their beliefs is perfectly acceptable because they're wrong.
So they "force their beliefs on others". It's exactly what liberals used to say but now they do it. It's inversion which is Satanism. It's turning things upside down.
It used to be the laws reflected good morality, Christian morality and enforced this and the Church rightly used to teach that "error had no rights" which is completely correct as anyone who can still think clearly, which is very few now, can clearly see the results of doing away with this principle in this current atheist and evil society.
We're in the end times and Lucifer and his forces are merely turning things on their head. "They call evil good and good evil." It's truly the end times and Satan and the elite families he controls and who in turn control everything else reigns supreme.
But it will not last. God will prevail. His promises are certain.
I'm fairly neutral on my position when it comes to gay/straight issues. However, why is it that those who scream 'tolerance' aren't willing to be tolerant of others' view if they are different?
If someone doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding for whatever reason, is that being intolerant? Yes. But, for those people that are going to give said bakery a hard time for their decision, isn't that also being intolerant?
Because I think there are 2 different things going on in this realm.
Let's take a different situation:
I have friends who are Republican, who are Democrat, who are neither, who are apolitical. How I relate to those friends is the personal aspect -- that is (in my view) where I can be tolerant or intolerant. When my Republican friends bring up political topics, I mostly become silent. That is my gift of toleration to them because of my friendship for them. If they press me, I will be very blunt and clear with them about my viewpoints. Again, this is the personal level.
On the other hand, when I was a school official, being tolerant of wrong/immoral views (and yes, that is subjective) was not something I would tolerate. It was my job to advocate for every student, for every parent, for every teacher...when they were being discriminated against, for whatever reason. Race, sexual preference, etc.
In other words, toleration on the personal, unofficial level. Intolerant on the official level when other people are suffering. Then, for me, it becomes right versus wrong.
And I will not accept wrong/immoral doing by government or any form of official action.
Liberals want tolerance for gays and minorities (which every person should have anyway), but have no tolerance for any opinions which disagree with them.
Liberalism= Fascism
How many times do you see conservatives disrupting democrat speeches/rallies or shouting down liberal speakers?
No.
We think restricting a person's rights is something that cannot be tolerant, even if we are tolerant of one's personal ignorance and foolishness.
I guess then, it's debatable as to what a 'human right' is? That's sort of at the crux of whether a person is prolife or prochoice when it comes to abortion.
For the gay debate, if one's religion precludes someone from agreeing with a gay lifestyle, then the 'human right' argument is nullified.
1. Yes, it is debatable what is or is not a "human right".
2. If your church has a policy against the gay lifestyle, then in my opinion you have that right to disagree with that lifestyle. You do not have the right to deny that lifestyle. The whole world is not inside your church.
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.
Libertarian Intermission
although one would think simply avoiding being lawfully caged or murdered 
