• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
34
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Granted, a poor choice of words on my part implying that such laws are already enacted. But the "politically correct" in this country are trying their best at enacting them. But already, we have "hate crime" laws that attempt to use a person's beliefs (excluding Christians), or race (excluding whites), or who they have sex with (excluding heterosexuals) as a means to indicate motive and increase the chances of a person being convicted when a crime is committed.

Hate crime laws don't actually make those exceptions, at least not at the federal level. Race, religion, etc. are all protected groups, and any violence against a subgroup (whether it's a majority of a minority is irrelevant) falls under the scope of the law. My suspicion is that a state hate crime statute that made specific exclusions for certain subgroups would be struck down by the Supreme Court for not granting equal protection.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,462
13,753
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟899,379.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You didn't explain yourself well.

How does two gay people wanting to get married, impact your personal life directly, in a negative way?

Does two gay people who want to get married, take away your ability to worship the God of your choosing? Does it prevent you from going to the church of your choosing?

I don't think anyone is making these kinds of assertions.

Does it take away your ability to believe whatever it is you want to believe?

It enables me to be penalized for speaking out about my beliefs if they are contrary to theirs. "Protected groups" is the term being applied to gays. Protected against what? Protected by what? They seem to think they are protected against anyone having a differing opinion. A gay couple wants a Christian baker to bake them a wedding cake and won't take no for an answer and then sues them over it. The baker loses in court. Sure, we can believe what we want, but apparently THAT needs to be kept in the closet.

Does it prevent you from making a living?

The case of the gay couple versus the Christian baker is an example here, UNLESS, of course, he lays aside what he believes by not acting upon his convictions.

Do you also choose to talk out against people who believe in different Gods, besides the one you believe in?

If I repeat what the bible says about Christ being the only way to Heaven, am I not saying something against anyone who claims otherwise; implying that they are wrong? Why else do you think Christians are labeled as being "narrow minded"? Jesus said, "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
[/quote]
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I don't think anyone is making these kinds of assertions.



It enables me to be penalized for speaking out about my beliefs if they are contrary to theirs. "Protected groups" is the term being applied to gays. Protected against what? Protected by what? They seem to think they are protected against anyone having a differing opinion. A gay couple wants a Christian baker to bake them a wedding cake and won't take no for an answer and then sues them over it. The baker loses in court. Sure, we can believe what we want, but apparently THAT needs to be kept in the closet.



The case of the gay couple versus the Christian baker is an example here, UNLESS, of course, he lays aside what he believes by not acting upon his convictions.



If I repeat what the bible says about Christ being the only way to Heaven, am I not saying something against anyone who claims otherwise; implying that they are wrong? Why else do you think Christians are labeled as being "narrow minded"? Jesus said, "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
[/quote]

I guess the bottom line is:

People are free to believe or not believe what they choose and they should be able to do so without outside interference and as long as they are not harming others in the process.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,462
13,753
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟899,379.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
[/quote]I guess the bottom line is:

People are free to believe or not believe what they choose and they should be able to do so without outside interference and as long as they are not harming others in the process.[/quote]


That's what I think too. It's only bothers me when the government gets involved and starts treating some people as more equal than others.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I guess the bottom line is:

People are free to believe or not believe what they choose and they should be able to do so without outside interference and as long as they are not harming others in the process.[/quote]

That's what I think too. It's only bothers me when the government gets involved and starts treating some people as more equal than others.[/quote]

The government is trying to assure certain people are not infringed upon and not able to live a life where they are allowed to live as they so choose, as long as they are not harming others, or breaking any laws.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,462
13,753
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟899,379.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The government is trying to assure certain people are not infringed upon and not able to live a life where they are allowed to live as they so choose, as long as they are not harming others, or breaking any laws.

Understood. But as hard as they're trying, they're going too far. Not just with this issue, but with many others as well. They've become too over-reaching and shouldn't be getting involved in these types of things.
 
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
18,038
5,601
Native Land
✟399,975.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Gay people should know better than to allow themselves to be used like this.
They should fight for their rights to get married . I don't see the problem here.
 
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
18,038
5,601
Native Land
✟399,975.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The same government that is giving them freebies today will be quick to take them away and blame them for problems when the tide changes direction and the government needs a scapegoat. It happens time and time again throughout history.
I think this is nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,504
10,871
New Jersey
✟1,359,793.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
On hate crimes, in the US something has to be a crime to be a hate crime. Hate crime laws give increased penalties when an attack is made against a member of a protected group. But there has to be an attack. With current Supreme Court interpretations that's not likely to change. The Court has allowed companies to discriminate in various ways but not laws.

I fear that the recent Hobby Lobby decision is bad news for conservative Christians. They allowed a company to have religious views, and to use them to restrict medical benefits for its employees. After that decision, it's unlikely that they'll intervene against companies that have ethical views favoring gays and use them to discriminate against employees. I think there are going to be a lot more companies favoring gays than opposing abortion. But so far I don't see much sign of actual hate crime laws.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
18,038
5,601
Native Land
✟399,975.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The question was are couples who have children by non traditional means less likely to split up.
I don't think children have anything to do with splitting up. I do believe married couples make the mistake in staying married, because of kids. The kids get stuck in the arguments and fighting. I see heterosexuals, divorce all the time. I just think it has more to with love, than anything else. I do believe people, that have kids the non traditional ways go through more. And that might make their marriage stronger. Or they cant take and split. But that could be heterosexual and homosexual marriage.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,462
13,753
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟899,379.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I fear that the recent Hobby Lobby decision is bad news for conservative Christians. They allowed a company to have religious views, and to use them to restrict medical benefits for its employees.

They didn't "restrict" anything. All Hobby Lobby was saying is that they didn't want to pay for drugs that worked as abortion pills. There are plenty of other contraceptives out there and are quite affordable. So while Hobby Lobby is only trying to protect their right to not buy things they don't believe in, we have other people who were attempting to force them to do so.

Basically, the idea is, "Hey, I understand you want to have an abortion. I don't agree with it but I won't stop you from making that decision. But at least pay for it yourself! Don't force me to pay for it."

This sounds reasonable enough to most Americans, but not for the liberal left who continue trying to force everyone to do what they want--while using the government to make those wishes come true. THAT'S when it starts affecting my rights.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
They didn't "restrict" anything. All Hobby Lobby was saying is that they didn't want to pay for drugs that worked as abortion pills. There are plenty of other contraceptives out there and are quite affordable. So while Hobby Lobby is only trying to protect their right to not buy things they don't believe in, we have other people who were attempting to force them to do so.

Basically, the idea is, "Hey, I understand you want to have an abortion. I don't agree with it but I won't stop you from making that decision. But at least pay for it yourself! Don't force me to pay for it."

This sounds reasonable enough to most Americans, but not for the liberal left who continue trying to force everyone to do what they want--while using the government to make those wishes come true. THAT'S when it starts affecting my rights.

I'm curious, lets say the hobby lobby case was ruled the other way, what specific rights of yours would have been violated?
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,504
10,871
New Jersey
✟1,359,793.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
They didn't "restrict" anything. All Hobby Lobby was saying is that they didn't want to pay for drugs that worked as abortion pills. There are plenty of other contraceptives out there and are quite affordable. So while Hobby Lobby is only trying to protect their right to not buy things they don't believe in, we have other people who were attempting to force them to do so.

Basically, the idea is, "Hey, I understand you want to have an abortion. I don't agree with it but I won't stop you from making that decision. But at least pay for it yourself! Don't force me to pay for it."

This sounds reasonable enough to most Americans, but not for the liberal left who continue trying to force everyone to do what they want--while using the government to make those wishes come true. THAT'S when it starts affecting my rights.

Yup, and other companies are going to say they don't want to pay employees whose values disagree with theirs. The moment you treat companies as persons that can express their faith in how they treat employees, you've opened Pandora's box. Just watch what happens and tell me in a couple of years which of us was right. I'm not personally at risk. My values are generally consistent with what most companies would consider good. I support equality for gays. But I'd like to avoid having discrimination against conservative Christians. I think this decision is going to make it harder.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yup, and other companies are going to say they don't want to pay employees whose values disagree with theirs. The moment you treat companies as entities that can express their faith in how they treat employees, you've opened Pandora's box. Just watch what happens and tell me in a couple of years which of us was right.

I believe you are smack dab right on!
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
52
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟129,090.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Yup, and other companies are going to say they don't want to pay employees whose values disagree with theirs. The moment you treat companies as persons that can express their faith in how they treat employees, you've opened Pandora's box. Just watch what happens and tell me in a couple of years which of us was right.

If what the SCOTUS says allows for this, we'll know pretty quick. We won't have to wait a few years.

Companies already treat us according to their own values, if you really think about it. How many companies fired employees for what they wrote on social media? I worked for a company that didn't have to give me Sunday mornings off to go to church and that company didn't care one whit if I wanted to go to church. I couldn't wear my cross necklace because the company I worked for didn't want to offend non-Christians. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

In this case, you have a company that didn't want to pay for certain types of drugs.

Would you say the same thing about a company that didn't want to pay for someone's medical marijuana?
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,504
10,871
New Jersey
✟1,359,793.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Would you say the same thing about a company that didn't want to pay for someone's medical marijuana?

Yes, I would object to a company that didn't want to pay for medical marijuana. I don't think a company has any business imposing its own values on employees' medical treatment. I'm assuming, of course, the it's legal in the relevant State.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,462
13,753
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟899,379.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I don't think a company has any business imposing its own values on employees' medical treatment. I'm assuming, of course, the it's legal in the relevant State.

"Imposing it's own values"??? So what if I want something, but I want you to pay for it, but you won't do that? Are you imposing your values on me?

Maybe I want a Lamborghini sports car, and I want you to pay for it. If you say you won't pay for it because it's an unnecessary expense, should I be able to go to court to accuse you of imposing your values on me?

If you want something--whether it's to smoke weed, or have an abortion, pay for it yourself! It's not my responsibility to pay for it. When I'm forced to pay for something you want, then my rights are being violated.
 
Upvote 0

Glass*Soul

Senior Veteran
May 14, 2005
6,394
927
✟46,902.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
"Imposing it's own values"??? So what if I want something, but I want you to pay for it, but you won't do that? Are you imposing your values on me?

Maybe I want a Lamborghini sports car, and I want you to pay for it. If you say you won't pay for it because it's an unnecessary expense, should I be able to go to court to accuse you of imposing your values on me?

If you want something--whether it's to smoke weed, or have an abortion, pay for it yourself! It's not my responsibility to pay for it. When I'm forced to pay for something you want, then my rights are being violated.

When a company offers group health insurance, it is not a gift any more than the employees' wages or paid time off are gifts. They are all parts of an overall compensation package. They are all earned by the labor of the employee. It certainly does not bestow upon the employer the right to approve or disapprove of the employees' healthcare decisions any more than it gives the employer the right to approve or disapprove of how employees spend their wages.

They are paying for it themselves.

If you offered a Lamborghini in payment for work and the work has been done, then you will be hauled into court if you don't turn it over. Whining that you don't like the places you think your employee is going to drive it won't get you anywhere.
 
Upvote 0

poolerboy0077

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2013
1,172
51
✟1,625.00
Faith
Atheist
I haven't made any statement to the press about my sexuality. Nor should gay people.
Many married people, the vast majority of whom are opposite-sex couples, typically invite people to their wedding and make a celebration out of their heterosexual relationship. I don't see why there's anything wrong with celebrating people's relationships or the affections they have for others. We even love hearing about other people's love and commitments in movies. Heterosexuals tend not to disclose it by saying things like "I am heterosexual" because they don't need to come out since 1) they make up the majority of the population (only 3-5% of the population is gay), and 2) they are not marginalized to keep it a secret lest they lose family, friends, employment, respect, protections, safety, etc. It is simply the assumed position -- and that's fine, but let us not pretend as though heterosexuals do not make any declarations of their sexual orientation, whether overtly or indirectly. We don't tell parents who tell us about their kids to "keep their sexuality in the bedroom" because revealing you have kids typically is an indication that you had sex for at least as many times as the number of children one has (except for the tiny minority who have them unnaturally in vitro).

It's also important to address two other points. One is this notion that gay people need to "keep it in the bedroom." But keep what in the bedroom, exactly? No one is telling you about their sexual escapades in lurid detail, except for crass people who, just by sheer number, tend to overwhelmingly be heterosexuals -- just listen to much of contemporary pop music. You're getting to fixated on the term "sexual" in "sexual orientation" but you are committing a fallacy known as Equivocation. When I say "my wallet is light" I don't use the term "light" to refer to "luminosity" but rather "weight." Likewise, the word "sex" in "sexual orientation" does not refer to intercourse but to the dichotomy of the sexes, like when we say "the battle of the sexes" -- we're not refering to a battle among genitalia but rather of males versus females. The prefix hetero- and homo- mean "different" and "same," respectively. Hetero- and homo- what? Hetero- and homo-intercourse? No, that makes no sense. It means hetero- and homo-sexual -- as in pertaining to a person's attraction to either a different or same sex. It's very telling how when we think about heterosexuals we think about the constellations of experiences they have: romance, intimacy, family, love, etc. When we think about gay people, we focus on the sex part (as in intercourse). Heterosexual people have lives, but homosexual people have "lifestyles." Heterosexuals have a moral vision, homosexuals have an "agenda." This loaded terminology biases the conversation and our way of thinking about these things from the get-go.

Finally, it's important for people to not only come out but to make it known. How else do you think people have changed their attitudes on the topic and have come around to tolerating and even accepting gay people in a span of just a few years? By staying quiet lest gays "annoy" straight people? Of course not. People respond empathetically and compassionately when you put a human face to an issue. And it also works by providing solidarity and support for those still in hiding, especially kids. Thanks to celebrities as well as average folk uploading videos to the It Gets Better project, for instance, many kids have written letters and uploaded videos giving thanks for providing them the support they needed to rethink suicide, having initially contemplated it because they couldn't initially conceive of a life was worth living as a result of all the hostility and negativity around them. I can't possibly see how people can express repeatedly being "bothered" by another article on an athlete coming out over they've stumbled across but remain virtually silent on the tragedy and hardship of, say, teens kicked out of their home after being honest and open in coming out.


But like I said earlier:

Let's not derail this thread with a discussion about whether you feel homosexuality is immoral.


This is a thread about a judge's response to a specific argument advanced by the defendants: that of procreation and its purported relevance to banning same-sex marriage.

I'd love for people to evaluate that argument and give their thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,462
13,753
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟899,379.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
How else do you think people have changed their attitudes on the topic and have come around to tolerating and even accepting gay people in a span of just a few years?

The same way any other sin becomes tolerable. They do it incrementally, a little at a time. And ya know what? Just introduce sin of ANY kind a little at a time, and pretty soon, everything will be tolerated.
 
Upvote 0