Supreme Court to decide gay marriage

[zico20]

The US supreme court will decide two issues concerning gay marriage. First is that the 14 states that have a ban right now will be struck down, making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Second is if states must recognize gay marriages from another state.

The hearing is set for April with a final ruling in June. It is widely considered that justice Kennedy will be the deciding vote. He has backed gay rights in the past. The issue is weather gay marriage bans are unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the constitution.

[horses4courses]

The US supreme court will decide two issues concerning gay marriage. First is that the 14 states that have a ban right now will be struck down, making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Second is if states must recognize gay marriages from another state.

The hearing is set for April with a final ruling in June. It is widely considered that justice Kennedy will be the deciding vote. He has backed gay rights in the past. The issue is weather gay marriage bans are unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the constitution.

If this issue comes down to one solitary deciding vote,
the SCOTUS is in a very sorry state.

Next, it will be back to loincloths and dragging big clubs along the ground.

[JustRalph]

The equal protection part of the law is easy. I predict more than just Kennedy decides that one.

The States question might get to be very sticky.

The tenth Amendment and citing same could bestow a State the right to refuse to recognize. This could be avoided by Gay couples just by getting married in the State they live. But would cause some real problems when traveling.

Lots of weird shit could come into play depending on what happens.

They will probably invalidate all the bans and force the states to recognize. This would be in line with the equal protection argument. As long as they don't get hung up on the 10th Amendment.......

[reckless]

Why is this issue coming up again? At this time? That's a fishy topic that should be discussed, not this.

The US Supreme Court has no right to rule on the issue of gay marriage being unconstitutional or not.

[HUSKER55]

as for being gay I don't care. What I object to is forcing churches to recognize them and second force insurance companies or any business to deal with them.
No law should have that ability.

The SCOTUS should not even hear this case.

[zico20]

Why is this issue coming up again? At this time? That's a fishy topic that should be discussed, not this.

The US Supreme Court has no right to rule on the issue of gay marriage being unconstitutional or not.

Here is the way I look at it. Gay marriage should be a states rights issue. States that have a ban should be able to keep it. The problem is liberal judges struck down these bans, going against the wishes of the people of a particular state. This is why the supreme court has to decide. Same thing with abortion. There is nothing in the constitution giving either gay marriage or abortion federal protection. If you want the federal government to force states to have abortion and gay marriage, propose and pass a constitutional amendment, like when prohibition was passed. The 10th amendment has been trampled on and will continue. States have no rights these days.

Further, how about the NJ sports betting. Sports betting should be a states right issue also. Please don't tell me about there being a law on the federal books outlawing it. We had a law against gay marriage, DOMA, that was struck down. The same should apply to sports betting. My equal protection under the law is compromised in that Nevada allows sports betting, so should other states if they so desire.

Let states decide and if someone doesn't like the rules of a particular state, then move to a state where you like their laws. As you can tell, I am a big advocate of states right.

One last thing. If gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states, then polygamy should not be far behind. If marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, then open up the law further. The reason polygamy won't become legal is simple. Everybody knows it will be a man with more than one wife rather than the other way around. There would be very little one woman multiple husbands. Womens' groups would go ballistic over this.

The supreme court is going to rule in favor of legalizing it, IMO. Now, I don't personally have anything against gay marriage IF each state wants it. I just don't think it should be forced down the states throats.

[Tom]

9 fossils who's only sex in decades has been screw us now deciding how we should live.

Nice.

My case to look at would be is this miserable excuse of a court constitutional the way it acts?

[Robert Goren]

There is this little thing called the 14th amendment. It really hard to guess what the Roberts court will do. My guess they will throw out state laws barring them. Here in Nebraska, they are not recognized. So if they get married in Iowa , they are recognized in Iowa, but across the river in Omaha, they are not. That is crazy. They either need to recognized everywhere in the US or nowhere. I am thinking nowhere is no longer an option. Maybe 15 years ago, but not now.

[Marshall Bennett]

as for being gay I don't care. What I object to is forcing churches to recognize them and second force insurance companies or any business to deal with them.
No law should have that ability.

Or force children unable to decide for themselves to go live and be raised by gay couples through adoption.
This is sick and regardless what gay's believe, is unnatural !!

[horses4courses]

This is sick and regardless what gay's believe, is unnatural !!

What's sick and bigoted is that it seems unnatural to you.
Children can be raised perfectly well by gay couples.

[classhandicapper]

I think gays should have the same legal rights as straights.

I don't really care if you call it a civil union or a marriage, it's not the same thing as getting married by a priest, rabbi, minister, cleric etc... in one of the major religions anyway. That latter is a kind of religious sacrament, not just a legal contract. The religious won't and shouldn't be required to accept a court marriage (or even a marriage by another religion) as equal to their own beyond legal requirements.

The only issue I have with the gay community is using legal means or extreme political/economic pressure to try to force religious and other people to accept their lifestyle as normal and moral and require others to do things against their own morality. I think people should live and let live and not force others to do anything.

[TJDave]

The only issue I have with the gay community is using legal means or extreme political/economic pressure to try to force religious and other people to accept their lifestyle as normal and moral and require others to do things against their own morality. I think people should live and let live and not force others to do anything.

I'm old enough to remember this argument being used against interracial marriage.

[classhandicapper]

I'm old enough to remember this argument being used against interracial marriage.

What argument?

The only judgment I made is that IMO it's no business of mine (or atheists like yours) to decide what religious people should believe. So I have no business forcing them to do things they disapprove of. I prefer live and let live.

How would you like living in a society where the religious were making moves to force you to do things you think are part of a preposterous fantasy.

Live and let live man. It's the only way to avoid conflict until people change on their own.

[zico20]

There is this little thing called the 14th amendment. It really hard to guess what the Roberts court will do. My guess they will throw out state laws barring them. Here in Nebraska, they are not recognized. So if they get married in Iowa , they are recognized in Iowa, but across the river in Omaha, they are not. That is crazy. They either need to recognized everywhere in the US or nowhere. I am thinking nowhere is no longer an option. Maybe 15 years ago, but not now.

The 14th amendment was primarily ratified having to deal with freed slaves and reintegrating the southern states. The US constitution does not mention that an individual has the right to marry. Yes, 14 times the US supreme court has ruled that marriage is a right. But they are wrong, it is a privilege, just like driving a car. Also, the equal protection clause has to do with the Bill of Rights. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is marriage mentioned. Propose and pass a constitutional amendment if they are so worried about it.

The 14th amendment is being used by liberals to justify taking away states rights where the federal government has no specific rights, ie gay marriage, abortion. Broadening the constitution to every situation by using the 14th amendment is plain wrong. The constitution becomes worthless when EVERYTHING is in it. The constitution was made difficult to change for a reason. Using the 14th amendment as an excuse to change it easily and on a whim is pathetic.

[cmp92]

Why is this issue coming up again? At this time? That's a fishy topic that should be discussed, not this.

The US Supreme Court has no right to rule on the issue of gay marriage being unconstitutional or not.
Yes it does. These cases have worked their way up the federal court system. Once multiple Courts of Appeals have reached different conclusions, the Supreme Court may grant certiorari to hear the case.

[thaskalos]

The only issue I have with the gay community is using legal means or extreme political/economic pressure to try to force religious and other people to accept their lifestyle as normal and moral and require others to do things against their own morality. I think people should live and let live and not force others to do anything.
How is a gay couple forcing me to act "against my own morality"? Should I be allowed to stare at them with a disgusted look, in order to feel that my "freedom" isn't being infringed?

[TJDave]

Should I be allowed to stare at them with a disgusted look, in order to feel that my "freedom" isn't being infringed?

And not sell them a wedding cake. ;)

[classhandicapper]

How is a gay couple forcing me to act "against my own morality"? Should I be allowed to stare at them with a disgusted look, in order to feel that my "freedom" isn't being infringed?

Sometimes you guys are a tough audience. You see things that aren't there. Miss things I think are obvious. Use arguments that have nothing to do with what I said. ;)

I am talking about cases of forcing businesses run by very religious people to host, cater, photograph, provide services etc.. associated with gay weddings. There was a case where a very religious couple used their own home (where I believe young children lived) to host such events. They got in all sorts of trouble for declining.

To me this is all BS.

If I was in business, no matter how religious I was (and I'm not), gay money is just as green. I'd take the business and think what I wanted about it.

If I was gay and I knew some really religious couple didn't accept my lifestyle, I might wish for a day when things weren't like that, but I'd respect their views and walk up the block to the next photographer and catering hall.

People are looking for conflict and trying to ram their values down other people's throats. I don't accept that as a good way to run a society or to change it. It doesn't change ANYONE's mind about anything. It creates hostile feelings.

[TJDave]

If I was gay and I knew some really religious couple didn't accept my lifestyle, I might wish for a day when things weren't like that, but I'd respect their views and walk up the block to the next photographer and catering hall.

Those who justify bigotry under the guise of religion are not deserving of respect.

[classhandicapper]

Those who justify bigotry under the guise of religion are not deserving of respect.

I have no idea what's in the heart of a religious person. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I do or that I have a right to make them do something they don't want to do.

You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I care less about this issue than whether I take a good dump tomorrow morning (this morning was fine ;) ). But I do think it's an absolutely horrible idea for people on either side of the political spectrum to force their values on others. It makes me want to puke even when I agree with the people doing the forcing. I think these things should change peacefully over time using positive approaches.

[Clocker]

Those who justify bigotry under the guise of religion are not deserving of respect.

bigotry: extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

How is not wanting to participate in a wedding you find morally wrong equivalent to not tolerating that wedding?

Is a Muslim that owns a restaurant that doesn't serve pork a bigot?

[Marshall Bennett]

Children can be raised perfectly well by gay couples.
And you know this to be a fact?

[horses4courses]

And you know this to be a fact?

Yes....they make the same amount of mistakes as straight parents.
They might even raise better kids, for all I know.

[TJDave]

Is a Muslim that owns a restaurant that doesn't serve pork a bigot?

Would you order a pizza at a Chinese restaurant?

Here's the difference:

Whatever's on the menu is available to everyone. If I walk into a wedding cake shop I should be able to buy a wedding cake...Whether I'm straight, gay, brown or purple.

[Clocker]

Would you order a pizza at a Chinese restaurant?

Here's the difference:

Whatever's on the menu is available to everyone. If I walk into a wedding cake shop I should be able to buy a wedding cake...Whether I'm straight, gay, brown or purple.

The example was sarcasm. The question, which you ignored, was not.

As to your response here, you should be able to buy anything they normally sell. Custom work is at their option. And to go back to a previous issue here, holding a wedding ceremony in someone's home is not the same as walking into a bakery.

[thaskalos]

Whatever's on the menu is available to everyone. If I walk into a wedding cake shop I should be able to buy a wedding cake...Whether I'm straight, gay, brown or purple.
What are you...a troublemaker?

[Tom]

dY4V3UUY95A

[HUSKER55]

Those who justify bigotry under the guise of religion are not deserving of respect.

except the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. if you force a church to accept gays then you are saying god and the members they are wrong.

Remember Sodom and Gamorah. The USA is heading down that path.

[Robert Goren]

In my life time, a business could refuse to do business with a person with different color of skin. When that was outlawed, the people who wanted to discriminate were using the very same arguments that are being used today. Yes, they were even bring the Bible into it back then too. Some loudest racist voices called themselves ministers. It seems to me that only the target of their bigotry has changed. Some people have just got have another group of people they can feel superior to.

[Actor]

The US supreme court will decide two issues concerning gay marriage. First is that the 14 states that have a ban right now will be struck down, making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Second is if states must recognize gay marriages from another state.If SCOTUS does not yes to each of these then I predict a drive for a constitutional amendment. I further predict it will eventually be successful.

[Tom]

Congress couldn't pass a law to pick up garbage.
They will NEVER be able to agree on anything like an amendment.
You give them FAR too much credit.

We are dealing with certifiable idiots here.

[reckless]

I repeat: The US Supreme Court has no right to rule on the issue of gay marriage being unconstitutional or not.[/QUOTE]



Yes it does. These cases have worked their way up the federal court system. Once multiple Courts of Appeals have reached different conclusions, the Supreme Court may grant certiorari to hear the case.

Thanks for responding to my post. I would have thought that my post would have generated more than 2 direct responses but I guess not.

Could you please tell me where in the US Constitution is the guaranteed right to marriage?

If you can't find such a guaranteed right (and you won't) then how could the US Supreme Court rule on the 'Constitutional right' of gay marriage?

[Tom]

If that is true, then any tax breaks given to married couple are unconstitutional as well.

[JustRalph]

If SCOTUS does not yes to each of these then I predict a drive for a constitutional amendment. I further predict it will eventually be successful.

You're joking right? You better look up what it takes to amend the constitution.

Then take a look at how many states voted on laws outlawing gay marriage. Including California. There's a math problem in your prediction.....

[JustRalph]

I repeat: The US Supreme Court has no right to rule on the issue of gay marriage being unconstitutional or not.





Thanks for responding to my post. I would have thought that my post wonuld have generated more than 2 direct responses but I guess not.

Could you please tell me where in the US Constitution is the guaranteed right to marriage?

If you can't find such a guaranteed right (and you won't) then how could the US Supreme Court rule on the 'Constitutional right' of gay marriage?

It's an equal protection argument. Not a marriage argument. The equal protection part of the Constitution has been argued hundreds of times in Federal courts. The Supreme Court is the absolute and final stop for constitutional questions for equal protection under the law.

[zico20]

The equal protection part of the law is easy. I predict more than just Kennedy decides that one.

The States question might get to be very sticky.

The tenth Amendment and citing same could bestow a State the right to refuse to recognize. This could be avoided by Gay couples just by getting married in the State they live. But would cause some real problems when traveling.

Lots of weird shit could come into play depending on what happens.

They will probably invalidate all the bans and force the states to recognize. This would be in line with the equal protection argument. As long as they don't get hung up on the 10th Amendment.......

If you go by the equal protection argument from the 14th amendment and apply a stricter interpretation of it, gay marriage does NOT fall under the equal protection clause. Gay marriage is a SOCIAL equality.

The equal protection clause was put in the 14th amendment for the sole purpose of protecting the 1866 Civil Rights Act. The theme at the time was to distinguish CIVIL equality from two other forms of equality. Those would be political and social. To strengthen my point, the 14th amendment does NOT include the right to vote. The framers addressed that in the 15th amendment.

Gay marriage is a SOCIAL equality, not a civil equality, and thus gay marriage should be determined at the state level, under the 10th amendment.

Everyone should go back and study the reasons and what was meant when the framers wrote the 14th amendment. It applied to slaves and the southern states. The equal protection clause was meant only to reinforce those two principles.

[thaskalos]

Nationwide statistics reveal that 40-50% of first marriages end in divorce, while 60-67% of second marriages, and 73-74% of third marriages, end the same way. In view of these depressing stats, it is rather obvious that marriage, as an institution, has proven itself to be largely a failure. Why not give the gay couples the opportunity to experience for themselves the advantages of a blissful marital union?

[riskman]

[QUOTE=zico20 Gay marriage is a SOCIAL equality, not a civil equality, and thus gay marriage should be determined at the state level, under the 10th amendment. [/QUOTE]



I beleive, federal courts have no jurisdiction to rule on matters of domestic relations, including marriage. Rules concerning regulation of marriage has to be left to the states to decide. I think that is what zico20 is stating in his quote, I agree here.

[JustRalph]

Gay marriage is a SOCIAL equality, not a civil equality, and thus gay marriage should be determined at the state level, under the 10th amendment.

Everyone should go back and study the reasons and what was meant when the framers wrote the 14th amendment. It applied to slaves and the southern states. The equal protection clause was meant only to reinforce those two principles.

I don't necessarily disagree with the above. But the equal protection clause is not limited at all. it has evolved greatly under the various courts. Btw, I actually agree with the evolution. But there is no way it is limited to social vs civil etc. Not anymore anyway.

There is no way you can deny one group a state protection and recognized categorization like "marriage" and then provide it to another group for any reason, whether civil, criminal or "social" Not under the equal protection clause.

[zico20]

I don't necessarily disagree with the above. But the equal protection clause is not limited at all. it has evolved greatly under the various courts. Btw, I actually agree with the evolution. But there is no way it is limited to social vs civil etc. Not anymore anyway.

There is no way you can deny one group a state protection and recognized categorization like "marriage" and then provide it to another group for any reason, whether civil, criminal or "social" Not under the equal protection clause.

You are correct that the equal protection clause has been broadened over the centuries. However, the SCOTUS can at anytime return to a more narrow reading of it. It seems a lot of people believe this case will be decided by a larger margin than 5-4. I disagree. Kennedy will be the deciding vote. It will all come down to weather he wants to be historically remembered as the deciding vote that legalized gay marriage nationwide. If he thinks it is inevitable that the country will eventually accept it then he might want to go down in the history books.

However, he may also not want to be remembered as the justice who crushed the 10th amendment, which as far as I can remember, he supports. He may take the safe route and let states decide gay marriage.

Everyone needs to remember that the justices on a ton of cases decides not on the merits of the law, which a lot of the time can be interpreted in many ways, but their own personal prejudices.

Roberts is going to be remembered in history as the guy who upheld Obamacare. His tarnished legacy will only be restored if the law falls apart this time around at the Supreme Court.

[Actor]

You're joking right? You better look up what it takes to amend the constitution.

Then take a look at how many states voted on laws outlawing gay marriage. Including California. There's a math problem in your prediction.....The same could have been said about women's suffrage in 1875.

[Actor]

Congress couldn't pass a law to pick up garbage.
They will NEVER be able to agree on anything like an amendment.

Read Article V. There are ways to amend without Congress.

[Actor]

The US Supreme Court has no right to rule on the issue of gay marriage being unconstitutional or not.SCOTUS can rule on any issue it wants to. SCOTUS says so. End of story.

[Robert Fischer]

Gay marriage is so 'gay'.

I don't think we are allowed to use the word 'gay' in a negative connotation anymore, but maybe I've found a loophole?


I don't get the debate, I should google it or something.
OK I googled it, still didn't find a quick answer.

Who cares what other adults want to do as far as marriage?
Is it a tax issue or something??
Is it concerns over the morality?

A lot of stuff doesn't make any sense. I think it's still illegal to smoke pot.

[rastajenk]

I don't think I've ever heard a clear concise explanation of the benefits to our society of same-sex marriage; it usually boils down to some kind of "fairness" issue. I don't believe that's a path we need to go down. Comparisons to racial equality or women's suffrage are weak; personal expressions of sexuality and arbitrarily changing definitions don't equate to denying large classes of humans the ability to participate in the economy and the republican form of democracy that we have.

Short version: What's love got to do with it?

[Robert Goren]

The opponents of gay marriage still believe that being born gay is a sin. That is what is so sad about this issue.

[rastajenk]

That certainly doesn't explain my position.

[classhandicapper]

The opponents of gay marriage still believe that being born gay is a sin. That is what is so sad about this issue.

I went to Catholic school as a kid and never met a religious person that believed that, let alone taught it.

The church's position on homosexuality is the same as its position on adultery.

You may have lustful desires, just don't act on them and it's all good.

For homosexuals, that rule is problematical because they would have to be celibate. That's not happening unless they have very strong religious feelings (which may explain why there are so many homosexuals and unfortunately also pedophiles in the priesthood)

[hcap]

The opponents of gay marriage still believe that being born gay is a sin. That is what is so sad about this issue.I went to Catholic school as a kid and never met a religious person that believed that, let alone taught it.Read the religious thread

[reckless]

SCOTUS can rule on any issue it wants to. SCOTUS says so. End of story.

You are correct, Actor, despite the US Supreme Court being wrong and lawless when it rules on non-Constitutional issues, such as gay 'marriage'.

[classhandicapper]

Here's the difference:

Whatever's on the menu is available to everyone. If I walk into a wedding cake shop I should be able to buy a wedding cake...Whether I'm straight, gay, brown or purple.

This is the stuff I have a problem with. Not being argumentative, I am just curious as to how you would handle this scenario.

Let's say I'm a religious person. I own a motel. Most of my business is people on vacation or business, but I occasionally get a married couple.

One day a couple comes in. I know they are both married, but to different people. I draw a line in the sand because my religious upbringing considers adultery sinful and I am offended. Giving them a room would make me feel like I was aiding and abetting a very immoral and sinful affair.

I provide motel services.

I have on occasion even provided short stay services to married couples.

I refuse to provide short or long stay services for adultery because my religion teaches me it's immoral behavior.

I am excluding services I normally provide to one subset of people because of my religion.

Is that OK?

[classhandicapper]

Read the religious thread

You can find examples of people that believe or sorts of wacky things, but mainstream belief and teaching is another matter.

[fast4522]

The opponents of gay marriage still believe that being born gay is a sin. That is what is so sad about this issue.

Kids are a product of their environment, orientation your asserting is a birth trait. To lose ones mind and identity is a tragedy often traced to the parents poor ability to raise their children after having them.

[hcap]

You can find examples of people that believe or sorts of wacky things, but mainstream belief and teaching is another matter.Fundamentalism comprises a rather large "mainstream" unfortunately

[Robert Goren]

I went to Catholic school as a kid and never met a religious person that believed that, let alone taught it.

The church's position on homosexuality is the same as its position on adultery.

You may have lustful desires, just don't act on them and it's all good.

For homosexuals, that rule is problematical because they would have to be celibate. That's not happening unless they have very strong religious feelings (which may explain why there are so many homosexuals and unfortunately also pedophiles in the priesthood) I am not Catholic, but I have never read any place that its members can not conduct business with known sinners. I suspect most Catholics do that everyday. Picking and choosing which known sinners you are going to business with is an iffy proposition at best.

[classhandicapper]

I am not Catholic, but I have never read any place that its members can not conduct business with known sinners. I suspect most Catholics do that everyday. Picking and choosing which known sinners you are going to business with is an iffy proposition at best.

I don't know any Catholics that pick and choose who to do business with based on their sins. But if there are any (or people from another religion) I don't see it as any of my business.

[OntheRail]

One last thing. If gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states, then polygamy should not be far behind. If marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, then open up the law further. The reason polygamy won't become legal is simple. Everybody knows it will be a man with more than one wife rather than the other way around. There would be very little one woman multiple husbands. Womens' groups would go ballistic over this.
.

Hold on now... Polygamy will be the next step if Court votes down State's Right to choose. It will be lead by the BI Sexual's claiming discrimination from being denied a Wife/Man/Man or a Man/Dyke/Wife.. or whatever the hell. So I see no end in sight other then a free for all under the Law.

[AndyC]

I am not Catholic, but I have never read any place that its members can not conduct business with known sinners. I suspect most Catholics do that everyday. Picking and choosing which known sinners you are going to business with is an iffy proposition at best.

By definition isn't everyone a sinner?

[delayjf]

Those who justify bigotry under the guise of religion are not deserving of respect

And Christians would reply

Those who justify perversion under the guise of tolerance are not deserving of respect

[HUSKER55]

it boils down to either you believe in god,church and the bible or you do not.

[delayjf]

The reason polygamy won't become legal is simple. Everybody knows it will be a man with more than one wife rather than the other way around. There would be very little one woman multiple husbands. Womens' groups would go ballistic over this.

I'd be willing to be that the Jennifer Anniston's of the world would have no problem putting a harem together :cool:

[TJDave]

And Christians would reply

Those who justify perversion under the guise of tolerance are not deserving of respect
Except that:
While this is a country with many Christians, it is not a Christian country.

[horses4courses]

Except that:
While this is a country with many Christians, it is not a Christian country.

It is as far as many of the Christians are concerned.

[TJDave]

It is as far as many of the Christians are concerned.

Dinosaurs. There are less of them each day. The world is getting smarter. Religion is dying.

[LottaKash]

Dinosaurs. There are less of them each day. The world is getting smarter. Religion is dying.

Getting smarter ?.... Just look around smartypants....Because religion is dying, the "World is Becoming more Evil" day by day....In case you haven't noticed lately...

There should be less of your kind....People like you offend people like me...

You stand for nothing worthwhile, imo.... You are simply void and empty inside....

[TJDave]

Getting smarter ?.... Just look around smartypants....Because religion is dying, the "World is Becoming more Evil" day by day....In case you haven't noticed lately...

There should be less of your kind....People like you offend people like me...

You stand for nothing worthwhile, imo.... You are simply void and empty inside....

Tell me something. Why do you quote an atheist?

[thaskalos]

You stand for nothing worthwhile, imo.... You are simply void and empty inside....
You don't know that he is void and empty inside. He could be very satisfied and content.

[LottaKash]

You don't know that he is void and empty inside. He could be very satisfied and content.


Well judging by his snide and meaningless comments, he sure had me fooled...

I think a satisfied and contented person wouldn't have need to make statements that offend other people in a moral and spiritual way....

[Robert Goren]

Kids are a product of their environment, orientation your asserting is a birth trait. To lose ones mind and identity is a tragedy often traced to the parents poor ability to raise their children after having them.That theory of the origin of homosexuality has been abandoned by all but the bigots. A guy person can no more change than a black person can change his skin. Who can change is the bigots. If we are to believe the conservative movement, bigotry against black people by whites has all but wiped out. I am not willing to go quite that far, but there has been a major shift on race in this country in the last 50 years. We are in the process of doing same for Gays.

[delayjf]

Except that:
While this is a country with many Christians, it is not a Christian country.
Yet when this issue is put to to the vote, you lose.


Dinosaurs. There are less of them each day. The world is getting smarter. Religion is dying.
I love how the left considers the acceptance of the gay life style as an intellectual achievement. :D

We are in the process of doing same for Gays.
Ah yes, the slippery slope.

[hcap]

Getting smarter ?.... Just look around smartypants....Because religion is dying, the "World is Becoming more Evil" day by day....In case you haven't noticed lately...

There should be less of your kind....People like you offend people like me...

You stand for nothing worthwhile, imo.... You are simply void and empty inside....It may be religion is not all it is cracked up to be. At least not popular religion.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_rev eal_an_increasingly_peaceful.html#

The World Is Not Falling Apart

[Marshall Bennett]

I love how the left considers the acceptance of the gay life style as an intellectual achievement. :D

Yeah that, along with a lifestyle in general that's turning the country into an immoral dumping ground.
Yeah, we're really getting smarter. We're about to become the dinosaurs. :)

[MutuelClerk]

Tough issue. I'm usually for state rights but on this issue I am not. If you're gay and your partner travels to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage and becomes ill. The partner wouldn't be allowed to visit on their partners possible death bed unless they have power of attorney. That just seems cruel to me. Unfair. I have a family member who recently came out, she told me last fearful of my response. I told her I've known for years and love and accept her no matter what. I still have a few issues with gay marriage but legalize it or don't. And let everyone move on. It seems there are a lot more important things than this for the Supreme Court to decide.

[HUSKER55]

the problem with religon is that no one takes it to the streets. People go to church on sunday and screw the living hell out of everyone they meet as much as they can during the week.

I have marginal faith in big government and less for religon. They worry about everyone else except their own back yard.

[horses4courses]

Because religion is dying, the "World is Becoming more Evil" day by day....In case you haven't noticed lately...

My goodness.
That's the biggest contradiction that I've seen on here in a while.
People have been killed in the name of religion for centuries.

I would call that evil, and it hasn't let up much recently.
Or, haven't you noticed?

[delayjf]

People have been killed in the name of religion for centuries.
But nothing on the scale of Stalin, Mao, Pot, Hitler - I could go on.

[JustRalph]

My goodness.
That's the biggest contradiction that I've seen on here in a while.
People have been killed in the name of religion for centuries.

I would call that evil, and it hasn't let up much recently.
Or, haven't you noticed?

Name someone who was killed in the last 200 years in the name of Religion?

I think you can narrow it down to one single religion

[thaskalos]

Name someone who was killed in the last 200 years in the name of Religion?

I think you can narrow it down to one single religion
Here:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/central-african-republic-christian-militias-revenge

[zico20]

Here:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/central-african-republic-christian-militias-revenge

What are the Christians suppose to do. Get slaughtered by the Muslims? They were just defending themselves.

[horses4courses]

Name someone who was killed in the last 200 years in the name of Religion?

I think you can narrow it down to one single religion

I take it that you mean in the US?
Last I knew there were quite a few devout religious types throughout the world.

[JustRalph]

I take it that you mean in the US?
Last I knew there were quite a few devout religious types throughout the world.

No, anywhere. Find me Christians killing in the name of their religion.

Zirco beat me to it Thask. They were defending themselves against the only religion left in the world that kills in the name of religion

[horses4courses]

No, anywhere. Find me Christians killing in the name of their religion.

Zirco beat me to it Thask. They were defending themselves against the only religion left in the world that kills in the name of religion

Over 3,500 dead in Northern Ireland since the late 60s.

[zico20]

Over 3,500 dead in Northern Ireland since the late 60s.

Nice try, but dead wrong. The conflict is a political one, not religious. Protestants want N. Ireland to remain in the UK where Catholics want to re unite with Ireland. It is almost that simple. Yes, there are sectarian and ethnic dimensions to it, but it is not religious. Give us another one to debunk.

[JustRalph]

Over 3,500 dead in Northern Ireland since the late 60s.

Stipulated. But not exactly a "crusade"

3500 is one day in the Muslim world

[woodtoo]

Stipulated. But not exactly a "crusade"

3500 is one day in the Muslim world

What!! Gay marriages? :D

[Robert Goren]

Name someone who was killed in the last 200 years in the name of Religion?

I think you can narrow it down to one single religion
In Northern Ireland, people have been killed for being Protestant by Catholics and for being Catholic by Protestants until about 15 years ago. Christians were killed by the communists in China and Southeast Asia during the 1950s and 1960s. The Vietnamese Tech that I worked with at parking garages had his grandfather killed by the communists for being a Christian. I could go on and on about religious killings not done by Moslems in fairly recent history. Some even the US.

[horses4courses]

In Northern Ireland, people have been killed for being Protestant by Catholics and for being Catholic by Protestants until about 15 years ago.

There still are sectarian killings taking place in Ulster.
Not on the same scale as before, but that part of the world
cannot be completely peaceful, or free of religious bias.
At least, not in our lifetime.

[fast4522]

That theory of the origin of homosexuality has been abandoned by all but the bigots. A guy person can no more change than a black person can change his skin. Who can change is the bigots. If we are to believe the conservative movement, bigotry against black people by whites has all but wiped out. I am not willing to go quite that far, but there has been a major shift on race in this country in the last 50 years. We are in the process of doing same for Gays.

I in no way expect you or anyone else to change what you think, life is all about the choices we make. The sooner some find out how to function without impacting others because of their choices the better off we all will be.

[horses4courses]

I in no way expect you or anyone else to change what you think, life is all about the choices we make. The sooner some find out how to function without impacting others because of their choices the better off we all will be.

How does treating gays and minorities
like other human beings adversely impact your life?

[thaskalos]

What are the Christians suppose to do. Get slaughtered by the Muslims? They were just defending themselves.
You are defending yourself when you fight back against your attackers...but that's not what is happening in the link that I provided. You would know that if you bothered to read it.

[JustRalph]

Good thread. Lots of good info.

[horses4courses]

Nice try, but dead wrong. The conflict is a political one, not religious. Protestants want N. Ireland to remain in the UK where Catholics want to re unite with Ireland. It is almost that simple. Yes, there are sectarian and ethnic dimensions to it, but it is not religious. Give us another one to debunk.

Wrong.
Having lived there for much of my life, this is a topic close to my heart.

You're right, in that it is more than just a religious struggle.
Politics and economics enter into it, along with other issues.

However, both sides function under the banner of their respective churches.
There is no way that you can keep religion out of the troubles in Ulster.

We were talking about SCOTUS and gay marriage, right?

[zico20]

You are defending yourself when you fight back against your attackers...but that's not what is happening in the link that I provided. You would know that if you bothered to read it.

What is happening in the link is Christians are trying to save themselves from further atrocities that the Muslims started in the first place. The rebels seized control illegally of the government. A Muslim then illegally became president and savagely started to commit atrocities against the Christians. The Christians, realizing that a Muslim free country will help end the bloodshed, retaliated against the Muslim government and started to wipe them out to prevent further bloodshed. The capital, Bangui, which once had 150,000 Muslims is down to about a 1000.

I can assure you now that the capital is close to Muslim free the people will be much better off. The Muslim rebels, backed by the Sudan government, had no right to overthrow a Christian government. We all know what the next step was going to be. You guessed it, a government where Muslim traditions take hold and Sharia law would have tried to be implemented. The Christians did the only thing they could. Set up Christian militias and drive the Muslims back to Sudan and other Muslim countries, where they belong.

In the long run, the country will be much better off after running the Muslims out of it. You seem to be a very anti Christian person.

[thaskalos]

What is happening in the link is Christians are trying to save themselves from further atrocities that the Muslims started in the first place. The rebels seized control illegally of the government. A Muslim then illegally became president and savagely started to commit atrocities against the Christians. The Christians, realizing that a Muslim free country will help end the bloodshed, retaliated against the Muslim government and started to wipe them out to prevent further bloodshed. The capital, Bangui, which once had 150,000 Muslims is down to about a 1000.

I can assure you now that the capital is close to Muslim free the people will be much better off. The Muslim rebels, backed by the Sudan government, had no right to overthrow a Christian government. We all know what the next step was going to be. You guessed it, a government where Muslim traditions take hold and Sharia law would have tried to be implemented. The Christians did the only thing they could. Set up Christian militias and drive the Muslims back to Sudan and other Muslim countries, where they belong.

In the long run, the country will be much better off after running the Muslims out of it. You seem to be a very anti Christian person.
Christianity has a shameful history...so, YES, that makes me an "anti-Christian person". I despise all institutions who have committed atrocities...whether these atrocities occurred now, or 400 years ago.

By the way...did you know that it took the Catholic Church more than 350 years to apologize for the torture and the assassination of the innocent scientists who had discovered that the earth revolved around the sun? Pope John Paul II officially apologized in 1992.

IMO...organized religion is an evil plague upon humanity.

Here...if you want to know what heroism is about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

[zico20]

Christianity has a shameful history...so, YES, that makes me an "anti-Christian person". I despise all institutions who have committed atrocities...whether these atrocities occurred now, or 400 years ago.

By the way...did you know that it took the Catholic Church more than 350 years to apologize for the torture and the assassination of the innocent scientists who had discovered that the earth revolved around the sun? Pope John Paul II officially apologized in 1992.

IMO...organized religion is an evil plague upon humanity.

Christianity has a great history of helping people through the ages also. Jesus taught love and forgiveness. According to your own words, you pretty much then despise everything in life. That is not good.

No, that is something I did not know. Thanks for pointing that out. I learned something new today. But then again you don't have to belong to an organized religion to love God and everything HE created in this universe.

I read it. Interesting article. Sure he should not have been killed for his views, but those things happened. Many Christians were killed for believing Jesus was the son of God. One thing Bruno got wrong though was his belief in an infinite universe. We now know that the Universe is a finite, closed system.

[thaskalos]

Christianity has a great history of helping people through the ages also. Jesus taught love and forgiveness. According to your own words, you pretty much then despise everything in life. That is not good.

No, that is something I did not know. Thanks for pointing that out. I learned something new today. But then again you don't have to belong to an organized religion to love God and everything HE created in this universe.

You don't have to be "religious" in order to be an asset to our society. Religion doesn't create the man; man creates the religion.

[zico20]

You don't have to be "religious" in order to be an asset to our society. Religion doesn't create the man; man creates the religion.

You are correct. There are many great people who are not religious. Man does create the religion based on his faith in God.

[horses4courses]

IMO...organized religion is an evil plague upon humanity.

I fully agree.
History, both ancient and modern, would have far fewer
atrocities scattered throughout Time had it never existed.

I grew up going to Sunday school, was christened in a Lutheran church,
and later confirmed in the Protestant Church of Ireland.

It was around the age of 15, or 16, that it dawned on me.
What a futile waste of time and energy, not to mention financial,
resources all of this was for those concerned. This was around 1973
in Ireland, and people no more than 100 miles away were dying
for nothing most every day.
I was part of a Protestant family in a country that was 95% Catholic -
and I had no respect for either church.

You don't have to be a religious person, in the modern sense,
to be a good human being leading a productive life.
Some people may benefit from their faith, and I won't dispute that
but, like Thaskalos, I believe that organized religion has been
a historical anchor for humanity in so many ways.

[Clocker]

I fully agree.
History, both ancient and modern, would have far fewer
atrocities scattered throughout Time had it never existed.

There was no systematic violence in the world before organized religion? No family against family, clan against clan, tribe against tribe?

Nothing has changed, it has always been us versus them. Religion is a rationalization, not a cause. It used to be my father can beat up your father. It evolved to my theology is better than your theology. Religion is tribalism in fancy clothes. Same as it ever was.

[thaskalos]

There was no systematic violence in the world before organized religion? No family against family, clan against clan, tribe against tribe?

Nothing has changed, it has always been us versus them. Religion is a rationalization, not a cause. It used to be my father can beat up your father. It evolved to my theology is better than your theology. Religion is tribalism in fancy clothes. Same as it ever was.

Yes...but now the "feuding tribes" are convinced that they will be rewarded with the "heavenly life".

[zico20]

Yes...but now the "feuding tribes" are convinced that they will be rewarded with the "heavenly life".

At least they realize that there is another life after this. They are definitely closer to eternal paradise than atheists are. Those people are in for a rude awakening one day.

[Clocker]

Yes...but now the "feuding tribes" are convinced that they will be rewarded with the "heavenly life".

Prehistoric tribes didn't have gods in need of appeasement, often in the form of human sacrifice? I see no difference.

Religion has actually had a civilizing effect. The victors no longer cannibalize the defeated warriors or enslave and rape their women. Well, rarely. Mostly just the latter.

[thaskalos]

Prehistoric tribes didn't have gods in need of appeasement, often in the form of human sacrifice? I see no difference.

Religion has actually had a civilizing effect. The victors no longer cannibalize the defeated warriors or enslave and rape their women. Well, rarely. Mostly just the latter.

There is plenty of difference. Prehistoric men never pretended to know the "mind of God"...nor did they ever presume to be God's "chosen people".

[Clocker]

Prehistoric men never pretended to know the "mind of God"...nor did they ever presume to be God's "chosen people".

They didn't? How could we know that, since by definition we know nothing about the beliefs of prehistoric man?

[thaskalos]

They didn't? How could we know that, since by definition we know nothing about the beliefs of prehistoric man?

We know...because God appeared on the scene much later. And if you don't believe me...then ask God's current representative on earth. Boxcar.

[hcap]

Once again off topic is divided. No surprise,
I will try to add my two cents providing a historical perspective.
Dividing OT further. :lol:

Religious wars, persecution, and frequent close minded bigotry ruled western European culture until only recently. The advent of first the Renaissance, and then Age of Reason and Enlightenment broke the all controlling influence of religion. The turn towards secularism, democracy, and the rise of technology and simple things like.... Gutenberg's movable type press introduced printing to Europe. His invention of mechanical movable type printing started the Printing Revolution and is widely regarded as the most important event of the modern period moved things away from the Church into the modern era.

Although there were periods of the rise of a more open and more secular society in the Muslim world..."The Islamic Golden Age refers to the period in the history of Islam during the Middle Ages when much of the Muslim world was ruled by various caliphates, experiencing a scientific, economic, and cultural flourishing it did not occur recently. So the west moved forward into a more secular culture the Islamic world, except for some isolated moments, fell back particularly after the Crusades into a mixed bag of religious rulers and left over effects of the earlier golden age. Also the simmering cultural divide that reached its peak during the Crusades left a lingering resentment among Muslims only refueled by modern western colonialism jockeying for Arab resources. "The Great Game" was a term for the strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia.[1] The classic Great Game period is generally regarded as running approximately from the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1813 to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. A less intensive phase followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. In the post-Second World War post-colonial period, the term has continued in use to describe the geopolitical machinations of the Great Powers and regional powers as they vie for geopolitical power and influence in the area.[2][3]
Oil created much of modern conflict in the Muslim world. .In fact In 1912 Britain’s First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill converted the British fleet to oil, making oil vital to British naval supremacy and global hegemony. After the defeat of Germany in World War 1, Britain’s Lord Curzon declared that the Allies had “floated to victory upon a wave of oil.”

My belief is that certain religions often are a reaction to older "worn out" religions that wither and become fixed in tribal norms, losing their initial spark. They frequently change into a belief system 180 degrees opposed to where they were originally. Christianity has not always shined. The Inquisition, Salem Witch trials, Hundred Year Wars, and 2,000 years of Jewish persecution by Christian and brutal history of anti-Semitic bigotry is not to be proud of. Blindly adhering to worn out "laws" is a problem of many belief systems. I doubt the intentions of Marx and socialist philosophy would have supported the cruel turn towards totalitarian rule and all it's brutality. Things fall apart constantly.

For my friend boxcar who is fond of issuing proclamations.......The "Law of Universal F**K UP" :lol:

So here we are again, debating sticking to the "tried and true" conservatism of established forms---with it's dangers of losing the original intent, and looking for that "new spark" of fresh ideas of liberalism---with it's dangers of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Carry on guys :lol:

[Tom]

Lots of atrocities committed by GREEKS aiding the Niazi's in WWII.

Does that count, Thask....collaborating?
They killed Jews for their religion....real he-men!

[Robert Goren]

There is plenty of difference. Prehistoric men never pretended to know the "mind of God"...nor did they ever presume to be God's "chosen people".I think that is exactly what prehistoric man did believe.

[horses4courses]

At least they realize that there is another life after this. They are definitely closer to eternal paradise than atheists are. Those people are in for a rude awakening one day.

I'll take my chances on that one.
When you're gone, to me you are either ashes or bones.
Nice for some to believe that there's an eternal paradise to shoot for.
I'm not convinced.

[Tom]

If there isn't, then there is no good nor evil.
Why would I not kill anyone who I didn't like?
Other than fear of jail, but if I could get away with it.....

[upthecreek]

I agree with the great Kinky Friedman;
They have just as much right to be as miserable as everyone else!!

[horses4courses]

If there isn't, then there is no good nor evil.
Why would I not kill anyone who I didn't like?
Other than fear of jail, but if I could get away with it.....

You really dislike people enough to kill them?
Your life isn't worth living outside of captivity?
I'm sorry.

Or else you're saying that someone who doesn't
believe in God has the makings of a murderer?

Of course, there is good and evil.
Doesn't take religion, or a god, to show me that.

[Tom]

I am saying that if there is no God, there is no good nor bad, no right no wrong, just nature. And in nature, animals kill other animals.

And without a Diety, we are just randomly occurring carbon based animals who owe nothing to anyone but our own survival and comfort.

So yes, with no god, I would not tolerate others who piss me off and would seek to get rid of them.

Good thing for YOU I am a believer! :eek:

[Robert Goren]

If there isn't, then there is no good nor evil.
Why would I not kill anyone who I didn't like?
Other than fear of jail, but if I could get away with it.....I forget who said it and I am too lazy to google it. "There may or not be a God, but Devil is all too real. " or something like that.

[Tom]

go to new thread.....

[thaskalos]

I am saying that if there is no God, there is no good nor bad, no right no wrong, just nature. And in nature, animals kill other animals.

And without a Diety, we are just randomly occurring carbon based animals who owe nothing to anyone but our own survival and comfort.

So yes, with no god, I would not tolerate others who piss me off and would seek to get rid of them.

Good thing for YOU I am a believer! :eek:

Isn't this proof that the atheists are better people than you are? If what you say here is valid...then wouldn't some liberal atheist from this site have gotten rid of YOU a long time ago? :eek:

[thaskalos]

Lots of atrocities committed by GREEKS aiding the Niazi's in WWII.

Does that count, Thask....collaborating?
They killed Jews for their religion....real he-men!

Yes, Tom, it counts...and the entire Nazi-occupied Europe was guilty of the same thing. To SAY you are a "Christian" is one thing; to PROVE it, is another...

[Tom]

Isn't this proof that the atheists are better people than you are? If what you say here is valid...then wouldn't some liberal atheist from this site have gotten rid of YOU a long time ago? :eek:

No good, no evil, how can there be better or worse with no standard?
There is only on natural law - survival of the fittest.
What about the hippos who kill the young?
Evil?

New thread started for this.....

[Marshall Bennett]

Great, we now have three threads on religion. :)

[fast4522]

How does treating gays and minorities
like other human beings adversely impact your life?

I do not think there is that question at all, the SJC will rule on married rights? Where did I mention minorities ?