French Christians, Muslims, Jews rally against gay marriage

[Zoness]

People keep trying to draw that parallel. Its baseless. Skin color is not sex.

But same sex marriage will become accepted and who will be critically reviewed in the future? People who are opposed to it now. They will be compared to the slave owners of the south. Those who uphold the Bible aren't known to be inclusive, regardless of what bits of that book tell them to do.

 

[awitch]

Are they really wealthy?

It was hard to say at first because they kept knowingly, illegally withheld their financial statements and fought to keep the records hidden (and lost). Now we know they made between 6 and 7 million dollars a year for the last few years.

For them to "act as the face of the faith," is a put-on. For someone to believe such misrepresentation, is a con job.

But we hear that almost all Christians. Everyone thinks they have the right interpretation to the exclusion of everyone else. IMO, I agree with you, but the Bible does say it's an abomination.

Its getting worse, but I don't think those numbers are growing. Instead, people are indeed leaving the Church, being disgruntled with God, and leaving faith altogether. Notice that those are 3 different things ...

I think these groups are a significant contributing factor.

And I'll say it again, this is a really dumb reason to leave Christianity.

If someone is earnestly seeking a spiritual path and all they are told is which demographic to hate and blame for economic and natural disasters, then I can't think of a better reason to leave.

Well you must admit you've been kinda all over the map in this thread. Your stance has gone from hate crimes offering protection for gay bashers to hate speech, and I don't recall if your goal of gay marriage has been mentioned or not. Those are 3 distinct things, but actually calling for criminalization of homosexual behavior is a completely different ballpark. If some lunatic fringe does that, who's fault is it if people confuse that with the Church as a whole? I mean not even the Pope does that ...

Yes, I have jumped around a bit, but if you follow the culture wars closely, they are all related in a large scale. It's these same groups that are behind the efforts to block same sex marriage, that want religious exemptions from laws, that talk about recriminalizing same sex relationships, and crying persecution the whole time.

One horribly poor way that Christians disagree is by condemning their brethren for whom Christ died, when Jesus specifically told us NOT to condemn because that's HIS job. So your best bet is as soon as you see somebody doing that to recognize who the phony is. Problem solved?

I recognize the people behind these groups are money driven bigots with a political agenda. I recognize they exploit your religion to rally people through fear and propaganda. But not everyone does. And they're doing it in the name of your god.

Which changed in the issue against the will of the people, due to judicial activism.

There's that phrase that conservatives love to use when they lose.

 

[seeking Christ]

But same sex marriage will become accepted and who will be critically reviewed in the future? People who are opposed to it now. They will be compared to the slave owners of the south.

Oh goody, so skin color = sex, and being against SSM = being pro slavery, even tot he point of being a slave owner. With logic like that I should just forget thinking altogether and merely adopt the opposite of whatever is said. I'd come out fine.

 

[Zoness]

Oh goody, so skin color = sex, and being against SSM = being pro slavery, even tot he point of being a slave owner. With logic like that I should just forget thinking altogether and merely adopt the opposite of whatever is said. I'd come out fine.

If you are assuming this is my line of thinking.

My point is that this is how people will see it in the future. Religions [Christianity in the case] are pointedly anti-progress.

 

[seeking Christ]

It was hard to say at first because they kept knowingly, illegally withheld their financial statements and fought to keep the records hidden (and lost). Now we know they made between 6 and 7 million dollars a year for the last few years.

Who is the "they" you are referring to here?

I agree with you, but the Bible does say it's an abomination.

Do you know what that word means? It means God tells you to stop, and you keep doing it anyway.

If someone is earnestly seeking a spiritual path and all they are told is which demographic to hate and blame for economic and natural disasters, then I can't think of a better reason to leave.

I can't imagine any sect of Christianity, no matter how lunatic fringe, teaching that at the exclusion of all else. Neither can I imagine hearing that and thinking it were Christianity and deciding to leave Christianity because of it.

Yes, I have jumped around a bit, but if you follow the culture wars closely, they are all related in a large scale. It's these same groups that are behind the efforts to block same sex marriage, that want religious exemptions from laws, that talk about recriminalizing same sex relationships, and crying persecution the whole time.

There are LOTS of people that are against SSM that don't any of these other things and wouldn't consider participating in any such group. I think this is called poisoning the well?

I recognize the people behind these groups are money driven bigots with a political agenda. I recognize they exploit your religion to rally people through fear and propaganda. But not everyone does. And they're doing it in the name of your god.

Well those dirty birds! (Who are we talking about again?)

There's that phrase that conservatives love to use when they lose.

Look what happened in Iowa. It's true.

 

[awitch]

Who is the "they" you are referring to here?

National Organization for Marriage, American Family Association, Illinois Family Institute, Family Resource Council et al.

I can't imagine any sect of Christianity, no matter how lunatic fringe, teaching that at the exclusion of all else.

Exclusion nothing. If that's even a part of what they teach I'd walk out.

Well those dirty birds! (Who are we talking about again?)

The same as above (NOM, AFA, FRC..)

Look what happened in Iowa. It's true.

Without Googling it, can you tell me who the judges were?

 

[seeking Christ]

American Family Association

What's my car insurance doing blocking same sex marriage, wanting religious exemptions from laws, talking about recriminalizing same sex relationships, and crying persecution the whole time?

Are you sure your whole list pertains to all these organizations?

Exclusion nothing. If that's even a part of what they teach I'd walk out.

But you're flip-flopping again. Last time you said all they're told is who to hate and blame. Your statement here is better.

Without Googling it, can you tell me who the judges were?

Not a chance. Even with google I probably couldn't Even so, look at a map and ask yourself what in the world Iowa is doing? Everywhere else that supports SSM is joined geographically. The whole center of the Country hates SSM, and Iowa is no different.

 

[awitch]

What's my car insurance doing blocking same sex marriage,

American Family Association

But you're flip-flopping again. Last time you said all they're told is who to hate and blame. Your statement here is better.

To quote Bugs Bunny, "Don't be so dang literal!"
What I'm trying to say is that there are people who are on a spiritual quest to find meaning in the universe, a path to live a good life, and all that good stuff. When they are bombarded with rhetoric, propaganda, and vitriol in their houses of worship, the media, their friends and family, wherever, they are going to be really put off. And when the right wing groups that push that hate also loudly declare how they are the real Christians and do their work in the name of your god, it shouldn't be surprising that the result will be a lot of people disenfranchised with Christianity. And those who were already ambivalent are going to be that much more antagonistic.

Not a chance. Even with google I probably couldn't Even so, look at a map and ask yourself what in the world Iowa is doing? Everywhere else that supports SSM is joined geographically. The whole center of the Country hates SSM, and Iowa is no different.

So you assumed they were activist judges.
I, too, was surprised when I heard about Iowa, but I found it it was one of the earliest states to prohibit racial discrimination. It allowed inter racial marriages a century before the Supreme Court allowed it nationally. It was the first state to allow women to attend universities with men, and practice law. Iowa also decriminalized same-sex relations almost 30 years before the Supreme Court did. Not too shabby on the civil rights front, eh?

 

[seeking Christ]

What I'm trying to say is that there are people who are on a spiritual quest to find meaning in the universe, a path to live a good life, and all that good stuff. When they are bombarded with rhetoric, propaganda, and vitriol in their houses of worship, the media, their friends and family, wherever, they are going to be really put off. And when the right wing groups that push that hate also loudly declare how they are the real Christians and do their work in the name of your god, it shouldn't be surprising that the result will be a lot of people disenfranchised with Christianity. And those who were already ambivalent are going to be that much more antagonistic.

That's still a dumb reason to leave Christianity itself. If you walk into a tire store and the person at the counter tries to sell you cinder blocks, you don't swear off tires.

So you assumed they were activist judges.

Actually no, I spoke with people in ... Iowa. Assumption need not apply, and its the worst sort of bedfellow.

 

[awitch]

That's still a dumb reason to leave Christianity itself. If you walk into a tire store and the person at the counter tries to sell you cinder blocks, you don't swear off tires.

That's nothing like what I've been trying to point out, but I don't think I could make it clearer, so I'll have to let it go.

Actually no, I spoke with people in ... Iowa. Assumption need not apply, and its the worst sort of bedfellow.

Like I said, conservatives love to use the "activist judge" line whenever they disagree with a ruling.

I couldn't find too much information on the judges in the case, but one, Brent R. Appel, was appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts, a very conservative judge who was appointed by George W. Bush.

 

[seeking Christ]

That's nothing like what I've been trying to point out, but I don't think I could make it clearer, so I'll have to let it go.

Its exactly what you've been pointing out! People go to Church to learn Christianity, and are sold a bill of goods that is entirely different, being told nothing but who to hate and blame. They can't tell the difference due to sheer stupidity or refusal to look at the pictures of the tires in the sale section of the paper (analagous to Scripture) so they swear off tires, IOW they don't compare what they're told to Scripture and have no excuse for making a really dumb mistake, because the two are every bit as distinct as tires are to cinder blocks. Even Fred Flintstone knew to make his wheels at least kinda round.

I couldn't find too much information on the judges in the case, but one, Brent R. Appel, was appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts, a very conservative judge who was appointed by George W. Bush.

And this means what, exactly? That one Judge controlled their Court and couldn't have possibly come up with anything other than what the people of Iowa wanted?

 

[awitch]

And this means what, exactly?

It's really dubious that a very conservative president would appoint a very conservative judge who would then appoint a liberal, activist judge. I haven't yet found much background on the other judges involved in the case but before you could determine if they were "activist" you would need to know who appointed them and the history of rulings they made in the cases that went before them. Talking to people in the state who disagreed with one ruling is not a determining factor.

 

[seeking Christ]

It's really dubious that a very conservative president would appoint a very conservative judge who would then appoint a liberal, activist judge.

Irrelevant. One Judge does not a court make. You've never heard of a dissenting opinion? Besides, people are not really drawn down political lines as we see here in this bizarro world that has become the internet. Individuals are free to be individuals, and may form opinions and base decisions that are not in lockstep with preconceived notions.

I haven't yet found much background on the other judges involved in the case but before you could determine if they were "activist" you would need to know who appointed them and the history of rulings they made in the cases that went before them.

Absolutely false. Any given day any individual can do what you would least expect. In this case the majority of Judges ruled against the will of the people. And just because you consider it to be progress, doesn't make it so.

It might be interesting to see how many homosexual marriages have been performed in Iowa since this ruling, add that to homosexual couples that have moved to Iowa in that same time frame, and compare that to the same numbers in other States comprising an equal land mass. (What would that be, most or all of gay friendly New England, right?) Turn that into an annual figure and see how they stack up. It might be telling?

 

[awitch]

Irrelevant. One Judge does not a court make.

There were several judges. Judge Robert Hanson in the District Court and the judges in the Iowa Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous in favor of the plaintiffs. Iowa's constitution had a liberty and equality cause so when the same-sex couples were denied a marriage license, the court ruled Polk county violated their rights.

You've never heard of a dissenting opinion?

Unanimous decision.

Besides, people are not really drawn down political lines as we see here in this bizarro world that has become the internet. Individuals are free to be individuals, and may form opinions and base decisions that are not in lockstep with preconceived notions.

More reason why it's ridiculous to refer all of them as activist judges. That's a cop out for when you want to keep your beliefs without having to think about them. Blame them.

In this case the majority of Judges ruled against the will of the people. And just because you consider it to be progress, doesn't make it so.

I refer you again to Iowa's pre-existing constitution. The constitution protects the minority from the majority.

It might be interesting to see how many homosexual marriages have been performed in Iowa since this ruling, add that to homosexual couples that have moved to Iowa in that same time frame, and compare that to the same numbers in other States comprising an equal land mass. (What would that be, most or all of gay friendly New England, right?) Turn that into an annual figure and see how they stack up. It might be telling?

Looks like between 2009 and 2010, two thousand twenty same sex couples were married in Iowa, with 815 being residents of the state. The rest moved in from the neighboring states so they could marry.

 

[seeking Christ]

So 400 Iowa residents a year take advantage of this "great social progress," and you think that reflects the will of the people rather than Judges acting against their will? Why don't you find that laughable?

 

[awitch]

So 400 Iowa residents a year take advantage of this "great social progress," and you think that reflects the will of the people rather than Judges acting against their will? Why don't you find that laughable?

800 couples, not 800 residents.
There's nothing funny about the majority's purely religious based beliefs dictating the rights of fellow citizens when the constitutions are supposed to guarantee liberty and justice for all. Those 800 couples had 0 negative impact on the marriages between opposite genders couples.

What's laughable are the people saying the country will fall into a chaotic immoral godless wasteland because these 800 couples now have some tax benefits that everyone else already had.

 

[seeking Christ]

800 couples, not 800 residents.

Ok, so double my #, and compare that to the population of Iowa, and try to tell me this represents the will of the people of that State.

There's nothing funny about the majority's purely religious based beliefs dictating the rights of fellow citizens when the constitutions are supposed to guarantee liberty and justice for all. Those 800 couples had 0 negative impact on the marriages between opposite genders couples.

Why must you obstinately refuse to see what the concern is, and instead rely on red herrings and strawmen like these? Plus, SSM has no bearing on "liberty and justice for all."

What's laughable are the people saying the country will fall into a chaotic immoral godless wasteland because these 800 couples now have some tax benefits that everyone else already had.

Classic definition of a strawman. I've read many of your posts, and you're a bright guy. Why does that go out the window on this issue and you insist on becoming overcome with emotion about it?

 

[awitch]

Ok, so double my #, and compare that to the population of Iowa, and try to tell me this represents the will of the people of that State.

Our government isn't based on majority rule.

Classic definition of a strawman. I've read many of your posts, and you're a bright guy. Why does that go out the window on this issue and you insist on becoming overcome with emotion about it?

All the other arguments from the anti-lgbt crowd have been debunked. That's all they have left and that's what they use to rally their supporters.

 

[seeking Christ]

Our government isn't based on majority rule.

And of the people, by the people and for the people has also gone out the window. I just wish you weren't quite so happy about it.

All the other arguments from the anti-lgbt crowd have been debunked. That's all they have left and that's what they use to rally their supporters.

Why not just admit you don't understand your opponents?

 

[awitch]

And of the people, by the people and for the people has also gone out the window. I just wish you weren't quite so happy about it.

More than 50 percent of Americans now support same sex marriage. Shall we just declare it legal at the federal level and call it day?

Why not just admit you don't understand your opponents?

OK. I don't understand why they want to deny equal rights to fellow citizens. I don't understand why they spend millions of dollars to block it. I don't understand why those right wing groups lie and smear people like they do. I don't understand why they are fixated on the sexual relations (as if what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is any of their business to begin with).