Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[stevevw]

That's really over the top, but I have to admit if it was true it would be hard not to take some pleasure in seeing religious conservatives being handed back what they have been dishing out for so many years.

Not over the top at all. It may seem that way to someone who is hostile to the traditionalist point of view but its simply a logical conclusion. No one can deny that due to the change in the law by redefining marriage to be between any two adults makes a traditional definition untenable. The moment a person declares that marriage is between a man and women they open themselves up for all sorts of possible repercussions.

Plus two wrongs don't make a right. I am not sure what you mean by conservatives getting some payback. Traditional marriage has been a universal understanding not just by conservatives but by most people throughout the world and history. That is because there is good reason morally, economically, psychologically, biologically and anthropologically.

The marriage issue is not about rights but an agenda to redefine marriage and undermining the traditionalist position. That is what its always been about across a number of areas including gender ideology in redefining man and women and the family itself.

 

[stevevw]

Should a Christian baker have the right to refuse service to a Muslim who wants the Shahada written on his cake?

Yes otherwise the Christian is creating something that is celebrating and professing something that is against their conscience. It would be the same for a Muslim to not have to create a cake celebrating Christ as the redeemer and representative of the only Christian God or a gay to create a cake that expressed a biblical verse condemning homosexuality as a sin. But its not just for cakemakers. It should be for anyone who is forced to express something against their conscience.

So yes if a person is forced to proclaim or create a message or act that goes against their belief and conscience they should not be made to do it. Otherwise it would be no different to how in totalitarian regimes like North Korea where they can force a westerner for example to stand up before the world and before forced to read out some propaganda script otherwise they face imprisonment. Luckily in most Western Nations we have rights that protect freedom of religious and speech.

 

[Speedwell]

Not over the top at all. It may seem that way to someone who is hostile to the traditionalist point of view but its simply a logical conclusion. No one can deny that due to the change in the law by redefining marriage to be between any two adults makes a traditional definition untenable. The moment a person declares that marriage is between a man and women they open themselves up for all sorts of possible repercussions.

Yes' I can deny it and denounce it as well as self-serving ignorant bigotry. Your claim that "traditional marriage" has become untenable is a lie. Your misrepresented and exaggerated sources don't support your position--as Kylie has repeatedly shown you.

Plus two wrongs don't make a right. I am not sure what you mean by conservatives getting some payback. Traditional marriage has been a universal understanding not just by conservatives but by most people throughout the world and history. That is because there is good reason morally, economically, psychologically, biologically and anthropologically.

Ignorant Eurocentric nonsense. And yes, two wrongs don't make a right but it sure is fun to see religious extremists get some pushback.

The marriage issue is not about rights but an agenda to redefine marriage and undermining the traditionalist position. That is what its always been about across a number of areas including gender ideology in redefining man and women and the family itself.

Baseless paranoia. The only agenda is the agenda of a small number of people in society to live as they please without interference from religious bigots.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes otherwise the Christian is creating something that is celebrating and professing something that is against their conscience. It would be the same for a Muslim to not have to create a cake celebrating Christ as the redeemer and representative of the only Christian God or a gay to create a cake that expressed a biblical verse condemning homosexuality as a sin. But its not just for cakemakers. It should be for anyone who is forced to express something against their conscience.

So yes if a person is forced to proclaim or create a message or act that goes against their belief and conscience they should not be made to do it. Otherwise it would be no different to how in totalitarian regimes like North Korea where they can force a westerner for example to stand up before the world and before forced to read out some propaganda script otherwise they face imprisonment. Luckily in most Western Nations we have rights that protect freedom of religious and speech.

I would like to see a test of that. I would really like to see what would happen if a Muslim owned business refused to serve Christians and made bigoted statements about them.

 

[stevevw]

I would like to see a test of that. I would really like to see what would happen if a Muslim owned business refused to serve Christians and made bigoted statements about them.

depends what you mean by bigoted remarks. No one is saying that anyone can just make unsubstanciated bigoted remarks. That shows you dont understand the issue at hand. We are talking about legitimate beliefs that are justified to hold. If someone came to a Christian baker and wanted them to create a cake with bigoted remarks about gays or anyone then that is clearly against the law. The same for creating a cake by a Christian that had denegrated Muslims.

As Judge Kennedy stated most people involved in these situation have genuine beliefs that they hold to and should not be forced against their conscience to create something that betrays those beliefs. What you doing is pushong things into deliberate spite which is wrong in anyones books. In fact it has been found that some gays have gone out of their way to be spiteful on this. Mr Phillips who won his case in the Masterpiece cake case has has a 2nd and even a 3rd attemp by people to make him create cakes against his belief.

 

[stevevw]

Yes' I can deny it and denounce it as well as self-serving ignorant bigotry. Your claim that "traditional marriage" has become untenable is a lie. Your misrepresented and exaggerated sources don't support your position--as Kylie has repeatedly shown you.

So your saying the Judges, many legal experts, doctors and other professionals commenting on this are liars and are exaggerating things. I would much rather believe them then a couple of people hostile to religion.

Ignorant Eurocentric nonsense.

The fact is traditional marriage is well recognised and been accepted by non Europeans as well. Research shows it is the best form of marriage setup for keeping people together, raising children and enabling strong communities. Thats the facts speaking and not opinion or ideology.

And yes, two wrongs don't make a right but it sure is fun to see religious extremists get some pushback.

Well that just shows where yo are coming from. Equating extremism with someone just pointing out how their beliefs are being denied or just going about their business and expressing and living out their honest beliefs. It is often the innocent people who are caught out by these activists going around making accusations and taking action against them. How can anyone trust what you say when you just want to see Christians suffer.

In October 2011 Toowoomba GP Dr David van Gend was forced to appear before Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Commission to respond to a complaint about an article that he wrote for The Courier-Mail arguing against any change to marriage laws. The complainant, the gay activist and serial litigator from NSW, Gary Burns, claimed the entire point of that article amounted to vilification simply because he didn't like the doctor's point of view:

The complainant, Mr Burns, did not have to appear before the commission and would suffer no penalty for his non-appearance. His complaint was ultimately withdrawn, but not before the doctor was forced to appear before the Commission and spend a few thousand dollars on legal fees.
https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=solidarity

Another example by the same serial litigator
As another example, conservative political activist Bernard Gaynor has been the subject of 28 complaints during a period of just 24 months—all lodged by one man, Gary Burns, the Sydney gay rights activist and serial litigator. So far, none of the complaints has been substantiated but Gaynor must head back into costly legal fights that are also part of a strategy to allow anti-free speech laws in one state to be used against those living in another. He has spent more than $50,000 in legal fees fending off the complaints and believes the system encourages anti-free-speech activists such as Burns to lodge complaints. As Gaynor points out, I am winning the legal battles at the moment, but the process is the punishment… There is no risk to the person lodging these complaints.
https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=solidarity

Theres also the case of the Tasmanian ArchBishop who was hauled off to the Anti descrimination tribunal because of a complaint for giving out a booklet to his congregation on the merrits of traditional marriage that I linked for Kylie from the same article above. As a legal expert said

it is deeply disturbing that a Catholic archbishop was dragged to an anti-discrimination authority for merely expressing a traditional view on the subject that until quite recently was shared by both the major political parties as well as a large segment of the population. This leaves religious organizations open to attack from outsiders and leaves their practices and beliefs unguarded.

So here we see once again because of the PC climate in society people can be taken to court for simply expressing an opinion supporting traditional marriage. And these cases include people who are not even religious but everyday citizens. So your wish to see Christians suffer also applies to anyone.

All a SSM supporter has to do is make the complaint that this type of view is hateful and vilifying gays or claim they have been offended by the language and this results in some innocent person being dragged through the courts making the life of those affected hell only to have the cases dropped over and over again. Thats how easy it is and the facts speak for themselves. Being offended doesnt even have to actually mean the fact of being offended but merely the language evokes an emotion of being offended which can be subjective. The system is in favour of people attacking anyone who supports traditional marriage.

Baseless paranoia. The only agenda is the agenda of a small number of people in society to live as they please without interference from religious bigots.

So all those examples I linked for Kylie are just baseless paranoia. Tell that to those it happened to. Christians have accepted the law changes. Christianity has not had any great influence on things for a long time. It has been gradually fading as society becomes more secular. No Christians have been stopping anyone getting married. That has been the result of mainstream governments.

The point is if what those on the left and the SSM supporters and all the PC brigade are sincere then equality and fairness should be applied to all regardless of what a person’s views or beliefs are. But like yourself and others they want to see some pay back and are happy to remain silent when it happens to others not in their camp which sort of shows where they are really at.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Speedwell]

So your saying the Judges, many legal experts, doctors and other professionals commenting on this are liars and are exaggerating things. I would much rather believe them then a couple of people hostile to religion.

What makes you think we're hostile to religion? You don't speak for all of the religious or even a majority of Christians.

The fact is traditional marriage is well recognized and been accepted by non Europeans as well.

And in some places it is traditional for men to have more than one wife or women to have more than one husband.

Research shows it is the best form of marriage setup for keeping people together, raising children and enabling strong communities. Thats the facts speaking and not opinion or ideology.

Research shows that raising children in a loving household is best for them. A permanently pair-bonded couple is a good way of doing this, but there is no research which shows that the couple has to be "married" according to the laws of your religion.

Well that just shows where you are coming from. Equating extremism with someone just pointing out how their beliefs are being denied or just going about their business and expressing and living out their honest beliefs. It is often the innocent people who are caught out by these activists going around making accusations and taking action against them. How can anyone trust what you say when you just want to see Christians suffer.

You seem to have the notion that "freedom of religion" means that Christians should be free of criticism and rejection for their beliefs. Why do you think Christians deserve that special consideration?

So all those examples I linked for Kylie are just baseless paranoia. Tell that to those it happened to. Christians have accepted the law changes. Christianity has not had any great influence on things for a long time. It has been gradually fading as society becomes more secular. No Christians have been stopping anyone getting married. That has been the result of mainstream governments.

Actually that hasn't always been true in the US.

The point is if what those on the left and the SSM supporters and all the PC brigade are sincere then equality and fairness should be applied to all regardless of what a person’s views or beliefs are. But like yourself and others they want to see some pay back and are happy to remain silent when it happens to others not in their camp which sort of shows where they are really at.

Yes, taking pleasure in seeing Fundamentalists get their comeuppance is not a Christian thing and I'm not proud of it.

 

[stevevw]

It is clear and apparent. I have linked many cases where supporters of the traditional position on marriage have been attacked and taken to antidescrimination commissions, tribunals and courts for simply expressing their views that marriage is between a man and a women. SSM activists have decided that this position should not be tolerated and thus we have seen the examples I have linked. There is no doubt about it. Call it extreme or paranoia that this has been highlighted. Perhaps that is just another example of the discourse created to attack those who support traditional marriage.

But the fact is the SSM activists group that shouts the most about tolerance is the least tolerant, that shouts the most about bigotry is the most bigotet and that shouts the most about hate is the most hatefulat the moment and that needs to be recognised.

 

[Speedwell]

It is clear and apparent. I have linked many cases where supporters of the traditional position on marriage have been attacked and taken to antidescrimination commissions, tribunals and courts for simply expressing their views that marriage is between a man and a women.

According to some of your anecdotes, that's not all they were "simply" doing. But being taken to court for ones public remarks and actions and being acquitted is not an infringement of religious freedom, it's a vindication of it.

 

[Bradskii]

Traditional marriage has been a universal understanding not just by conservatives but by most people throughout the world and history. That is because there is good reason morally, economically, psychologically, biologically and anthropologically.

You might have a point if it was an either/or position. But it isn't, so you don't. I don't see anyone wanting to do away with traditional marriage (and I have no problem in using the term) and replacing it with something else.

This argument that nobody should be able to enter in a relationship that is non-traditional and term it marriage 'because that's not what it means to me!' is almost petulant. Frankly, I could care less what anyone thinks if two women want to term their relationship a marriage. I really couldn't. Because it harms no-one at all. It doesn't lessen the meaning of the term when it is used in the 'traditional' sense by those who get married in a manner which is acceptable to you.

Answer me this: What affect does this actually have on you, Steve? What is the negative result to you personally? If you are married, does it lessen the committment that you and your wife share? Does it demean your relationship?

I think I'm noted as being married in the details under my forum name. But you don't know if my partner is male or female. Is something going to change for you in some mysterious way if you assume my partner is a woman and then I tell you that it's a man?

I'll save you some typin' time and give you the answer up front. No, it's not. Nothing will change. It will have zero affect on you. Not one jot or tittle. Your life will go on exactly as before.

Traditional marriage is just that. The form that it usually takes in Western society at this moment in time. For the majority of people. Stamping your foot and telling someone else that they must rigidly comply with tradition because that's what you want (or your religion determines) is bordering on the comical. Please don't assume that because people like myself indulge you in talking about this that anyone really cares.

We really don't. And maybe that's why people like yourself get hot and bothered about this matter. It's not that everyone else is not listening. It's because you are effectively being ignored.

 

[stevevw]

What makes you think we're hostile to religion?

The examples I have given clearly show people have suffered as a result of unfair, hostile pushbacks and denials of religious freedom. In presenting these examples to you the response seems to be much the same where there is continuous push back on anything that has been presented as though it’s nothing, just scare mongering and rubbish.

You don't speak for all of the religious or even a majority of Christians.

No but I do speak for the people who I have highlighted with the examples I have posted. I have reflected their experiences so I speaking up for them. That’s the point. I am sure anyone would see that these people have been treated badly.

That is why I say you and others are hostile to religion because if these examples were anything other than associated with religion or Christians you would acknowledge the poor treatment rather than making dismissive remarks like, its just scare mongering or it would be good to see them treated badly for a change.

And in some places it is traditional for men to have more than one wife or women to have more than one husband.

That simply does not diminish the fact that the marriage setup of one women and one man is a universal arrangement and has been for 1,000s of years.

Research shows that raising children in a loving household is best for them.

That’s only part of the equation. Love doesn’t overcome all things. The fact is children need both a mother and father and it is best that it is the biological mum and dad. Even Obama who supports SSM acknowledged this.

"We know the statistics - that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."

It’s the same for daughters who need their dads to model healthy male relationships. But they also need their mum for those female related things.

A permanently pair-bonded couple is a good way of doing this, but there is no research which shows that the couple has to be "married" according to the laws of your religion.

I never said the traditional marriage setup is just according to my religion. I said it was a universal understanding and an intuitive one that humans have known all along. But you are wrong on the research. There is research that shows having a biological mother and father in a monogamous and committed marriage is best for child and building a strong family which is the basis for a strong society.

A loving relationship is typified by sexual expression so it’s naturally orientated towards the creation of children and this logically follows it builds a family which is a building block for society. So in traditional relationships love can beget love as the ultimate act in creating a child. This has been shown to bring deeper attachments to children and give children a greater attachment and sense of belonging. It can also give greater commitment from parents to their relationship and family unit.

Only a traditional relationships between a man and women as biological parents can achieve this. So not all marriages are the same and this needs to be distinguished. But the new marriage laws will redefine this into a marriage between 2 people which can be open to other forms which come with different behaviours and consequences. What affects these new marriage definitions have on kids, the family and society needs to be determined.

The love within this relationship enables us to flourish in a way that no other relationship can. What's more, this love can beget love, for it is a love out of which other individuals can be born and loved and can come in turn themselves to love. The multi-directional loves which arise from this relationship are loves which naturally spring from the fact that the individuals share the same flesh and blood. The loving couple, in referring to their children, can rightly say "our own children." Each child, in referring to the parents, can correctly say "my own father" and "my own mother" (and "my own sister, brother, grandparent, aunt, uncle" and so on). These natural kinship loves provide the security, and the sense of home, so important to the flourishing of each member of the family. No other relationship can possess that same cluster of features in the same way.
Would Same-Sex Marriage Undermine Traditional Marriage?

SSM proponents were pushing personal autonomy as a right to equal marriage so if the law is about legal recognition of relationships that people want to call marriage then this opens up marriage to any relationship that can be argued as a right to marriage.

To this end, consider the remarks of Julian Rivers, a British Law Professor: “Marriage affirms the equal value of men and women, and promotes the welfare of children. Moreover, the logic of equal recognition and radical choice [in same sex marriage] means that the boundaries of any new definition will be far more vulnerable. Challenges to its exclusivity, its permanence and even its sexual nature will be unavoidable. Marriage risks becoming any formalised domestic arrangement between any number of people for any length of time. On such a trajectory, marriage will eventually unravel altogether.” I take that as a self-evident point. If marriage is redefined, then what marriage is or can be will inevitably change as well.
What if I told you there was a reasonable, non-homophobic case against same-sex marriage?

You seem to have the notion that "freedom of religion" means that Christians should be free of criticism and rejection for their beliefs. Why do you think Christians deserve that special consideration?

I am not saying that at all. Christians cop plenty of criticism in today’s ultra-secular society. Just proclaiming you’re a Christian can get you criticised and most Christians accept that as part and parcel of their lot. After all Christ did say that Christians will be condemned and even persecuted because of proclaiming his name.

But I am talking about something completely different where religious freedom is not even being acknowledged. Where there is intent not to acknowledging religious rights while at the same time proclaiming SSM rights instead. This is reflected in some of the examples.

Actually that hasn't always been true in the US.

That maybe so but we are talking about today where religion/Christianity is being reduced and doesn’t have as much influence. Now the US has a left leaning party who can create a culture that they think is best. That’s how it works. But just because there may have been an imbalance of power in the past doesn’t make it right to swing the pendulum too far the other way and deny others their rights.

Yes, taking pleasure in seeing Fundamentalists get their comeuppance is not a Christian thing and I'm not proud of it.

But as I said it’s not just the fundamentalists who are coping it. In fact it is mostly the average person including non-Christians who happen to be more conservative who seem to be targeted, like the small business cake shops, T shirt makers, Christian school, individual marriage celebrates etc.

 

[Speedwell]

The examples I have given clearly show people have suffered as a result of unfair, hostile pushbacks and denials of religious freedom. In presenting these examples to you the response seems to be much the same where there is continuous push back on anything that has been presented as though it’s nothing, just scare mongering and rubbish.

Because that's what I think it is.

That is why I say you and others are hostile to religion because if these examples were anything other than associated with religion or Christians you would acknowledge the poor treatment rather than making dismissive remarks like, its just scare mongering or it would be good to see them treated badly for a change.

You don't speak for the religious or even all Christians. Expressing a poor opinion about your rhetoric is hardly being hostile to religion

That simply does not diminish the fact that the marriage setup of one women and one man is a universal arrangement and has been for 1,000s of years.

Factually incorrect, as I pointed out.

Would Same-Sex Marriage Undermine Traditional Marriage?

That is a question which you have studiously avoided answering.

But as I said it’s not just the fundamentalists who are coping it. In fact it is mostly the average person including non-Christians who happen to be more conservative who seem to be targeted, like the small business cake shops, T shirt makers, Christian school, individual marriage celebrates etc.

All the cases in the US which I am aware of involve conservative Evangelicals.

 

[Kylie]

That particular post you highlighted is about a specific example where the outcome supported the religion and believers to not have to go along with SSM. But there are many cases where the people have been forced to conform and have had to close down or stop that part of their service.

I've been asking you to show me this, and you have so far been completely unable to provide even a single example.

So I'd say your claim here is just plain wrong.

But what I am finding contradictory and a bit of a red herring is your insistence on continually making the church the only place where this is happening. In fact the above example is not even about a church which shows how little you are paying attention or perhaps your recognition that it is happening beyond the church.

Ah, but that's where it started, isn't it? Back in post 794, you claimed that "Church owned buildings, schools, [and] reception venues" were "being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions."

Ever since then you have been totally unable to show a single example of that. And since then you've been constantly moving the goalposts to try to support your position.

Like I said it may not be happening in the church itself at the moment but is more likely happening to the fringe elements of religious services and the representatives of religions which I have provided ample example sof. It is through these areas is where religious freedoms will be denied which will eventually impact on the church.

So are you withdrawing the claim you made in post 794 where you said, ""Church owned buildings, schools, [and] reception venues" were "being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions."

No one is saying that Christian marriage should be the only marriage available. But what your failing to see is that with the current laws and definition changes has more or less made traditional marriage illegal. That is why many supporters of traditional marriage including non-religious ones were opposed to the way the changes happened. They predicted that these attacks on traditional marriage would happen and no one listened and now we are seeing it happening on a regular basis.

Please show me how marriage equality has made it illegal for a heterosexual man to marry a heterosexual woman.

Yes I agree that people can expect disagreement and name calling under free speech but not actions that destroy lives and deny people to live with their beliefs. As I said in todays PC environment even expressing that you support traditional marriage is not being allowed by more and more people and outlets and this can lead to people losing privileges, being demoted, closed down, losing benefits, being attacked on social media , threatened and even getting sacked IE

Gay couples being able to get married has never destroyed anyone's life.

A long serving Fire Chief was sacked for simply writing a book on his life as a fire fighter and happened to mention his beliefs on traditional marriage. Talk about denying free speech. He was awarded damages but the damage had already been done.
Atlanta to pay $1.2 million to former fire chief after firing him, violating his First Amendment freedoms
And you say that no one is denying free speech and its another scare tactic. These example sure tell a different story.

Once again, the court of law found that he WAS entitled to express his opinion.

And we're talking about churches being forced to hold SSM ceremonies against their will. Once again you are resorting to shifting the goalposts.

Family First stripped of charity status
Simply for their belief about traditional families. “It appears that certain views of marriage and family are now deemed out-of-bounds by the State.
Family First stripped of charity status | Family First NZ

And this is not an individual who was being denied their right to hold a viewpoint, it is a charity that was found to no longer be charitable. They also don't seem to realise that freedom to express views is not the same thing as freedom from the consequences of expressing those views.

And we're talking about churches being forced to hold SSM ceremonies against their will. Once again you are resorting to shifting the goalposts.

Many adoption agencies in Britain and the US have been forced to close because of their traditional beliefs about the family and that a child should be placed with a mother and father.
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/equality-tasmania_0.pdf

And we're talking about churches being forced to hold SSM ceremonies against their will. Once again you are resorting to shifting the goalposts.

Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law
So a women simply was expressing her views that traditional marriage is ok and her boss fired her because she says that anyone expressing support for traditional marriage is being descriminating and hateful. This is clear evidence that people cannot even express their beliefs without being penalized.
Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law

And we're talking about churches being forced to hold SSM ceremonies against their will. Once again you are resorting to shifting the goalposts.

A church gets threats that it will be burnt down simply for expressing their belief on a billboard defending the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Evangelical Church Threatened With Being Set on Fire Amid LGBT Outrage at Marriage Billboard

While I disagree with a church being threatened like that, it's rather hypocritical of you to claim that the church must have the freedom to speak against same sex marriage, but then say it's wrong for people to speak out against the church for being against same sex marriage.

Sounds like you are saying that freedom of speech is only acceptable if the speech is a position you agree with.

I mean even a Superman Comic writer has his editions edited out of history for merely expressing his views supporting traditional marriage. What next.
Superman Comic Writer Edited Out of Series for Support of Traditional Marriage

Kylie: Please show me examples of where a church has been forced to hold same sex marriage ceremonies.

Steve: Here's a case where a writer wasn't allowed to write for a Superman comic.

Do you hear the whooshing sound as those goalposts move?

Move against Archbishop Porteous ‘astonishing’ and ‘alarming’: Archbishop Fisher
Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP has denounced as “astonishing” and “alarming” the prospect of a Catholic bishop being dragged before a tribunal simply for stating the Catholic view on marriage, suggesting that it would constitute a betrayal of freedoms long valued in Australian democracy.
Move against Archbishop Porteous 'astonishing' and 'alarming': Archbishop Fisher | The Catholic Weekly

And the complaint was withdrawn.

And once again, this was NOT an example of a church being forced to perform a same sex marriage.

To Be Continued...

 

[Kylie]

Continued...

Similarly, media outlets such as The Guardian Australia openly refused to publish opinions from traditional marriage proponents about the consequences of same-sex marriage. Hence, the outlet adopted the curious view that legislating for same-sex marriage carried no consequences except for those its editors gave their personal blessing. https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-spurious-arguments-against-marriage-equality

So?

You seem to have a great deal of trouble actually answering my question. None of these have been instances of churches being forced to perform same sex marriages.

And if a newspaper decides to not print opinions from people who are against marriage equality, that's up to them. They are not a public forum that must allow anyone a podium to speak from, after all. If it were a religious newspaper that refused to publish opinions from marriage equality proponents, would you be equally upset? I doubt it.

Universities with more traditional positions on marriage and sexuality have been denied accreditation
https://xtramagazine.com/power/trinity-western-to-sue-after-being-denied-accreditation-60463

Again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the question I asked you.

Printers refuse to print book simply becuase it supports traditional marriage
“This is the first time that a publisher has refused a book on ideological grounds.
Log into Facebook

And again.

A doctor was forced out of his potion on the Victorian Equal Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission because he supports traditional families.
Why because of his support for traditional families in that a child with a mother an father does better
Doctor quits rights board after same-sex row

And again!

Subpoenas for Sermons in Houston Draw Outrage
The City of Houston even wanted to subpoena priests to check on their sermons to control their speech on what they can and cannot say regarding their marriage. Talk about a denial of free speech and Nazi like behaviour.
Subpoenas for Sermons in Houston Draw Outrage

Did you actually read the source?

"
“We are not interested at all in what some person may have preached about me or the GLBT community,” Parker said Wednesday at a news conference. “People are rightly concerned if a government entity tries to in any way inhibit religious speech. That is not the intent.”

Parker said the goal of the subpoenas was to see if there were any specific instructions given by pastors about how the petitions should be filled out. She suggested that the outrage over the word "sermon" in the subpoenas may have been due to “deliberate misinterpretation.”"

People and businesses have also experienced intimidation, boycotts and even death threats for their traditional views. This has included university academics, corporate employees, businesses, concerned mothers, and lobby groups. Governments have also been willing to donate to proponents of same-sex marriage and provide other benefits (such as flying rainbow flags) while denying any such support for opponents of change.
Without proper protections, same-sex marriage will discriminate against conscientious objectors

Yeah, this has nothing to do with churches being forced to hold same sex marriages does it?

In several European countries state and even church schools must now teach homosexuality amongst the range of options for children. Religious leaders, such as the Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam, have been sacked for daring to differ. In Spain same-sex lobby groups want to prosecute a bishop for hate speech after he preached in favour of Catholic teaching on marriage.
Truth, marriage and the threat to religious liberty

Here we are, watching the goalposts being moved once again.

A society that holds the right of same-sex couples to “marry” on par with that of opposite-sex couples cannot tolerate the presence of those who defend the traditional definition of marriage exclusively. It simply isn’t possible. Whenever we deal with “rights” in this way, we imply that there’s something intrinsic to our humanity at stake. Our rights are, after all, “inalienable” and “endowed by our Creator”. If someone denies one of those “rights” – however trivial it may seem – it inevitably appears grossly offensive. It denies part of our humanity.
Sweden to Force Priests to Perform Same-sex Marriage

Yeah, I've already debunked this one. Back in post 819.

So it should be abundantly clear now that traditional views on marriage and the family are now becoming a taboo topic in a PC society. Not because many people have abandoned these long held ideas which most people have lived by since time began and still conform to them but because people are too scared to proclaim their support under threat from activists and radical leftist governments. This will continue and eat into the inner sanctions of religious space just like the Trans ideology is eating into the inner sanctions of women’s space.

Except we weren't talking about that. I asked you to give me a single example of a church being forced to perform a same sex marriage against their will, and you have utterly failed to do so.

Instead, you've tried to derail the discussion to one about how people are copping flack for speaking against marriage equality, without realising that the very free speech you claim to hold dear is the same free speech that gives people the right to say that anti-marriage equality views are harmful. You complain free speech is being taking away with one hand, but then denounce the free speech of others when it's used to speak views you disagree with.

Then you are very naive. The above examples are just a small portion of what is happening. Think about it. If its now law that the definition of marriage is between two people then promoting marriage as between a male and female is opposing that law.

Do you REALLY think that's a good argument?

because last time I checked, saying that marriage was between two people INCLUDES the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.

And those people who are claiming that marriage is between a man and a woman aren't actually giving anything to heterosexual couples, it's just them telling gay couples that they aren't as good as straight couples.

It will therefore be seen as discriminatory because it doesn’t include same sex couples. That is why people (well activists and those on the radical left) are attacking the traditional position and why they were so opposed to these changes. As mentioned above by legal; experts both SSM and traditional marriage cannot co-exist under the present laws "it simply isn’t possible" so one has to go. At the moment it appears to be the traditional one.

Marriage equality does NOT take away the right for a man and a woman to get married.

All it does is take away the ability for people to say, "No, you can't get married, this is a straight-people only club!"

I really don’t think you are thinking this through and are being realistic. It would be nice if it was that way but it hasn’t been that way for many and I can only see it getting worse. Many traditionalist will have their lives made hard, will be excluded, and their position becoming increasingly untenable.

If you agree that it would be nice if it was the way I said, then you should be trying everything you can to make it that way.

 

[stevevw]

Because that's what I think it is.

Therefore as I mentioned you are hostile to any empathy for those religious people who have experienced suffering as a result of unjustfied attacks on their beliefs. If it was any other group you would probably have more concern. Thats how those on the left usually work.

You don't speak for the religious or even all Christians. Expressing a poor opinion about your rhetoric is hardly being hostile to religion

OK so your saying it happening but not as much as I claim.

Factually incorrect, as I pointed out.

You didnt link any facts unless you are asking me to believe you as the authority. All you have said is that marriage also occurs where a husband has more than one wife. But as I said this doesnt mean that marriage between one man and one women is not ancient and universal. Repeating the asserting doesnt change that.

The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia.
When is the first recorded wedding known to human? | Britannica Beyond
So this supports marriage between a man and women being 1,000s of years old as I said.
As far as marriage between a man and women being universal this is a self evident fact. Since time began humans and most of the animal kingdom but especially mammals through evolution have pair bonded in opposite sex to produce offspring and a family.

For humans this has been a universal reality by the fact that we have populated the world. The majority of people who procreate are opposite sex pairs who usually commit to stay together in families. This is a sociological and biological fact. The idea of marriage (pair bonding of male and female) is just a name given to what nature has shown us.
All cultures take the biological ‘given’ of the natural pair-bond and reinforce it with customs and ceremony to achieve the social goal of a stable family unit.

This article explain it best in that marriage between one man and one women to create a child and family is a universal relaity

So it’s true that the Judeo-Christian tradition views marriage in this way, but so too did the ancient Greeks and the ancient Romans; so too did enlightenment philosophers like John Locke and Emmanuel Kant; so too did Eastern thinkers like Gandhi. What this suggests to me and my co-authors is that there’s something about this understanding of marriage that is a near human universal. And so it doesn’t violate religious liberty or the (First Amendment) establishment clause at all to say that the government needs to be in the marriage business, not because it cares about the romance of consenting adults, but because it wants to make sure that children have (a) mom and a dad — and marriage is the way that you achieve that.
Q&A: Heritage Foundation scholar argues for marriage between a man and a woman

That is a question which you have studiously avoided answering.

Huh. I have been answering this question for pages. I have continually been saying that SSM does undermine traditional marriage (TM). Are we on the same page on this? Didn’t I just give Kylie a list of how TM has been attacked since SSM has come in? Even the article above answers that if you read it and supports what I have been saying.

See that’s the thing all I am getting from you and Kylie is unsubstantiated assertions. Whereas I have been backing up what I have been saying. But this is a common tactic with the left. They don’t like facts and evidence that shows they are wrong. So they go into denial mode and pretend it’s not happening. They make assertions hoping that no one checks them.

All the cases in the US which I am aware of involve conservative Evangelicals.

Once again this shows that you’re only seeing what you want to see and explains why you think nothing is going on. So you have not heard of the Masterpiece Cakes court case. This was an average Christian guy. It was well known and mentioned throughout the world.

The fact that you don't know about this case may explain your lack of empathy and hostility towards religious freedom and those who have copped the attacks on their rights to follow their conscience. You obviously are only seeing what you want to see and are ignoring the many small average people who have suffered and this may explain why you have little empathy.

So what about these other cases such as the many adoption agencies being forced to close because they chose to place kids in traditional families. They are being forced to close down because the State will not let them folow their religious mission and conscience. This is surely a case of a religion not being able to promote and follow TM. Surely you must have heard about this as it is happening in all countries especially the U.S. See you claim its scaremongering but when it comes to many children suffering as a result many thing its a serious matter that needs to be revealed.

Catholic Charities of Buffalo represents another example in a disturbing trend toward driving out faith-based agencies from America’s child welfare system entirely—a trend that could cause children immeasurable harm.
Catholic Charities places children in homes with both a father and a mother in accordance with Catholic teaching on marriage and the family.
States Must Stop the War on Faith-Based Adoption Agencies

You may not have heard about Archbishop Porteous who was dragged before the human rights tribunal for simply handing out a book supporting TM. Dont you think that is unfair. I linked that for Kylie as it happened in Australia.
Anti-discrimination complaint 'an attempt to silence' the Church

What about the following. They are not conservative Evangelicals do they count.
People and businesses have also experienced intimidation, boycotts and even death threats for their traditional views. This has included university academics, corporate employees, businesses, concerned mothers, and lobby groups. Governments have also been willing to donate to proponents of same-sex marriage and provide other benefits (such as flying rainbow flags) while denying any such support for opponents of change.
Without proper protections, same-sex marriage will discriminate against conscientious objectors

These are all average persons who have had their religious freedoms attacked or denied on a similar bassis to what people claim about other minorities and yet you say they are nothing, and rubbish.

 

[stevevw]

You might have a point if it was an either/or position. But it isn't, so you don't. I don't see anyone wanting to do away with traditional marriage (and I have no problem in using the term) and replacing it with something else.

You’re not understanding or appreciating what has happened. The law now is that marriage is between two persons. It does not stipulate what persons for a good reason. So when a person of belief wants to push stipulate traditional marriage (only between a man and women) they are actually promoting something counter to the new law.

Many see that this is being hateful because it excludes gays and is even a breach of the law as it is promoting the opposite of the law. That is why we are seeing so many examples of people being attacked for simply expressing their belief of TM from the example I have linked. Many legal experts agree. Its just a logical consequence of the law change. Many dont see this or make an issue of it but there are some who are wising up and we will see people being challeneged more and more.

Its very similar to whats happening with transgender ideology. When someone says there is only a man and women some get upset and claim this is being a bigot because it denies other genders. The same with TM by promoting it this is seen as denying the existence of same sex couples.

This argument that nobody should be able to enter in a relationship that is non-traditional and term it marriage 'because that's not what it means to me!' is almost petulant. Frankly, I could care less what anyone thinks if two women want to term their relationship a marriage. I really couldn't. Because it harms no-one at all. It doesn't lessen the meaning of the term when it is used in the 'traditional' sense by those who get married in a manner which is acceptable to you.

Once again this shows how little you understand the issue. You say that redefining marriage will harm no one but if we follow the same logical reasoning for inclusion of same sex couples to marry based on equality then this opens the door for anyone to demand that their version of marriage should be included as well. That may include 3, 4, 5 or group marriages and may inter family marriage and other forms. Some of these versions may be harmful to children and society. But we cannot deny their right to marriage just as we cannot for SSM.

So you are wrong that changing the definition of marriage harms no one as it does. That is why TM supporters were objecting to changing the current definition as it is a unique and different version of marriage to SSM that needs to be recognised and upheld. Why couldn’t they make a different version of marriage for same sex couples and still give them the same rights. Why redefine TM into a new mixed definition that will devalue marriage as a whole and at the very least devalue TM under the law.

Answer me this: What affect does this actually have on you, Steve? What is the negative result to you personally? If you are married, does it lessen the committment that you and your wife share? Does it demean your relationship?

It’s not just about me; it’s about children and society as a whole. That is the issue I see with SSM. It was about autonomy, what the individual wanted, and their rights and not considering society or children’s rights. This is a common theme with these issues like abortion its all about me, what I want. As we know with some studies kids can be affected by SSM. At the very least they will have no real bonding with a father or mother and many experts claim kids need both to have healthy attachments and development.

So not all marriage versions are the same and some do better than others. But now we cannot differentiate this as it would be regarded as hateful and discriminating. But if we are to have equality then we need to know what the current differences are to compare, how they affect others and society.

I think I'm noted as being married in the details under my forum name. But you don't know if my partner is male or female. Is something going to change for you in some mysterious way if you assume my partner is a woman and then I tell you that it's a man?
I'll save you some typin' time and give you the answer up front. No, it's not. Nothing will change. It will have zero affect on you. Not one jot or tittle. Your life will go on exactly as before.

Once again you are not seeing the bigger picture. But you are also assuming that I am against allowing gays to marry. That is not the case. My view of people won’t change regardless of what lifestyle they choose. I work with a range of people including gays. It is more about the protection of a unique way of marrying that is now at threat of being consumed in a new secular mix of marriage.

Most of the experts say the same thing that when you redefine marriage you also redefine a number of related issues like parenting, child welfare, and access to children, legal and economic aspects as well. For example same sex couples cannot produce children like TM couples. So the next area of rights will be access to children. This will lead to legalised surrogacy and other forms of adoption and custody. It may lead to three way arrangements for parenting or throuples. This all has effects on children and society.

Traditional marriage is just that. The form that it usually takes in Western society at this moment in time. For the majority of people.

This is a very superficial and uninformed understanding of TM. If we consider that TM is just societies way of labelling pair bonding of the opposite sex and sex is the ultimate act of that bond then this has been around since mammals walked the earth. Its how we populated the earths so its an anthropological and biological fact of life. It’s the most common form of relationship know to mammals.

If sex is the ultimate act then then the primary purpose of pair bonding is procreation and a family. It is for these reasons that help keep the family together and give security to children. It is also the foundation for building societies. It is something that we all intuitively known and is part of nature. So it’s not just the latest trend but rather a universal and natural state.

Stamping your foot and telling someone else that they must rigidly comply with tradition because that's what you want (or your religion determines) is bordering on the comical. Please don't assume that because people like myself indulge you in talking about this that anyone really cares.

lol, I think you are the one doing the assuming. Like I said I am not demanding that people or society conform to one rigid form of marriage. I appreciate and understand secular society’s ability and right to evolve marriage. It happened with the law changes to divorce and though Christians objected they accepted this. But since then we have seen the repercussions where divorce has more than doubled and others are affected especially children.

Like I said I am merely pointing out the special place TM had and has and that with the new law changes this will be further lost. Marriage may become less stable, less Monogamous, have less commitment and be more unrelable under this new definition. There are different forms of marriage and some are better for children, the family and society than others. By redefining marriage we will open it up to other versions which may have further impacts. By creating this new mix of mariage we have devalued marriage and are entering into an experiement that could have negative consequences if we look at history.

 

[Speedwell]

Therefore as I mentioned you are hostile to any empathy for those religious people who have experienced suffering as a result of unjustfied attacks on their beliefs. If it was any other group you would probably have more concern. Thats how those on the left usually work.

OK so your saying it happening but not as much as I claim.

I'm sure it happens. Where it is unjustified the people who it happens to are vindicated in the courts.

You didnt link any facts unless you are asking me to believe you as the authority. All you have said is that marriage also occurs where a husband has more than one wife. But as I said this doesnt mean that marriage between one man and one women is not ancient and universal. Repeating the asserting doesnt change that.

It's ancient, but not universal.

The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia.

When is the first recorded wedding known to human? | Britannica Beyond
So this supports marriage between a man and women being 1,000s of years old as I said.
As far as marriage between a man and women being universal this is a self evident fact. Since time began humans and most of the animal kingdom but especially mammals through evolution have pair bonded in opposite sex to produce offspring and a family.

For humans this has been a universal reality by the fact that we have populated the world. The majority of people who procreate are opposite sex pairs who usually commit to stay together in families. This is a sociological and biological fact. The idea of marriage (pair bonding of male and female) is just a name given to what nature has shown us.
All cultures take the biological ‘given’ of the natural pair-bond and reinforce it with customs and ceremony to achieve the social goal of a stable family unit.

This article explain it best in that marriage between one man and one women to create a child and family is a universal relaity

So it’s true that the Judeo-Christian tradition views marriage in this way, but so too did the ancient Greeks and the ancient Romans; so too did enlightenment philosophers like John Locke and Emmanuel Kant; so too did Eastern thinkers like Gandhi. What this suggests to me and my co-authors is that there’s something about this understanding of marriage that is a near human universal. And so it doesn’t violate religious liberty or the (First Amendment) establishment clause at all to say that the government needs to be in the marriage business, not because it cares about the romance of consenting adults, but because it wants to make sure that children have (a) mom and a dad — and marriage is the way that you achieve that.
Q&A: Heritage Foundation scholar argues for marriage between a man and a woman

Interesting opinion from a right-wing Christian think tank.

Huh. I have been answering this question for pages. I have continually been saying that SSM does undermine traditional marriage (TM). Are we on the same page on this? Didn’t I just give Kylie a list of how TM has been attacked since SSM has come in? Even the article above answers that if you read it and supports what I have been saying.

No, you have avoided the question. How does SSM undermine your traditional marriage? Just answer that question

See that’s the thing all I am getting from you and Kylie is unsubstantiated assertions. Whereas I have been backing up what I have been saying. But this is a common tactic with the left. They don’t like facts and evidence that shows they are wrong. So they go into denial mode and pretend it’s not happening. They make assertions hoping that no one checks them.

We check yours and they are generally rubbish.

Once again this shows that you’re only seeing what you want to see and explains why you think nothing is going on. So you have not heard of the Masterpiece Cakes court case. This was an average Christian guy. It was well known and mentioned throughout the world.

The fact that you don't know about this case may explain your lack of empathy and hostility towards religious freedom and those who have copped the attacks on their rights to follow their conscience. You obviously are only seeing what you want to see and are ignoring the many small average people who have suffered and this may explain why you have little empathy.

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Bakery, is an Evangelical Christian--a Baptist.

So what about these other cases such as the many adoption agencies being forced to close because they chose to place kids in traditional families. They are being forced to close down because the State will not let them folow their religious mission and conscience. This is surely a case of a religion not being able to promote and follow TM. Surely you must have heard about this as it is happening in all countries especially the U.S. See you claim its scaremongering but when it comes to many children suffering as a result many thing its a serious matter that needs to be revealed.

Catholic Charities of Buffalo represents another example in a disturbing trend toward driving out faith-based agencies from America’s child welfare system entirely—a trend that could cause children immeasurable harm.
Catholic Charities places children in homes with both a father and a mother in accordance with Catholic teaching on marriage and the family.
States Must Stop the War on Faith-Based Adoption Agencies

Nobody is forcing adoption agencies to close. Their government subsidy is being cut off.

You may not have heard about Archbishop Porteous who was dragged before the human rights tribunal for simply handing out a book supporting TM. Dont you think that is unfair. I linked that for Kylie as it happened in Australia.
Anti-discrimination complaint 'an attempt to silence' the Church

For disseminating material implying that gay couples are child abusers.

What about the following. They are not conservative Evangelicals do they count.
People and businesses have also experienced intimidation, boycotts and even death threats for their traditional views. This has included university academics, corporate employees, businesses, concerned mothers, and lobby groups. Governments have also been willing to donate to proponents of same-sex marriage and provide other benefits (such as flying rainbow flags) while denying any such support for opponents of change.
Without proper protections, same-sex marriage will discriminate against conscientious objectors

And the first examples cited are about Evangelicals.

These are all average persons who have had their religious freedoms attacked or denied on a similar bassis to what people claim about other minorities and yet you say they are nothing, and rubbish.

I'm not saying that they are nothing, and rubbish. I'm saying that your arguments are rubbish.

 

[stevevw]

I've been asking you to show me this, and you have so far been completely unable to provide even a single example.
So I'd say your claim here is just plain wrong.
Ah, but that's where it started, isn't it? Back in post 794, you claimed that "Church owned buildings, schools, [and] reception venues" were "being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions."
Ever since then you have been totally unable to show a single example of that. And since then you've been constantly moving the goalposts to try to support your position.

Yes I said associations and extensions of the church and not the church itself. That means individual reps, schools, seminaries, universities, marriage celebrates who belong to churches, ect. I have already supplied those examples; you just plain ignore them and make up rationalizations why they don’t count.

So rather than go through the list again for you to dismiss I will post one at a time so we can determine if they count. First is Bishop Love’s case. He was denied his freedom of conscience by his own church. He had no recourse and was forced to resign from his job simply for expressing his belief in support of traditional marriage.
Episcopal bishop disciplined for opposing gay marriage says he plans to appeal Church-enforced punishment

By the way even you acknowledge that the above case comes close to support my claim. You claim it doesnt quite count because it wasnt an atheist who was doing the denying. This is irrelevant as the point is being forced to go along with SSM regardless of why was doing the forcing.

So are you withdrawing the claim you made in post 794 where you said, ""Church owned buildings, schools, [and] reception venues" were "being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions."

No when I say may not be happening in the Church I mean the Church itself. But entities associated with the church could mean a number of examples that I listed plus others I didnt list. Basically any religious person or entity that is associated with a church and who is being denied their rights. I have supplied ample examples of this.

Please show me how marriage equality has made it illegal for a heterosexual man to marry a heterosexual woman.

I never said that. I said that the new laws have caused people to be attacked and in some cases sacked, hounded from their positions on boards, threatened for simply proclaiming their support for traditional marriage (TM) between a man and a woman.

Gay couples being able to get married has never destroyed anyone's life.

I never said that. I said as a result of the marriage law change which is now classified as between 2 people so that gays can be included this now means that promoting TM which is between opposite sex is in conflict with that law. Therefore people are being attacked as a result of expressing their view for this as they say it harms gays. As a result peoples lives are destroyed when they suffered the consequences of those attacks such as being sacked, losing income or reputation.

Once again, the court of law found that he WAS entitled to express his opinion.

Your missing the point. Why was he hauled before the courts in the first place for simply expressing a view about TM. The damage was already done and his life was destroyed. Thats why he got such a large pay out. The point is even when people are found not guilty its the fact that they were denied the right to express their view without duress and that damage caused that is the wrong which you are completely overlooking. The Fire Chief was denied his rights to freedom of speech and thats why he was awarded damages.

And we're talking about churches being forced to hold SSM ceremonies against their will. Once again you are resorting to shifting the goalposts.

No we are not. I am responding to your claim that no one is being denied freed speech in expressing their views about TM and that is why I posted those examples if you go back and chech post #833. So it is you who is moving the goal posts.

And this is not an individual who was being denied their right to hold a viewpoint, it is a charity that was found to no longer be charitable. They also don't seem to realise that freedom to express views is not the same thing as freedom from the consequences of expressing those views.

You say this example is not about being denied to hold a viewpoint and then acknowledge it’s about being denied holding a viewpoint.

Even the quote above from the article states it’s about holding a viewpoint. In this case the viewpoint about TM. They lost their charitable status for promoting the view of traditional marriage because the arbitrator thought that taking that view denied same sex couples. This is exactly what I have been saying and you have been denying IE
“The board considers that Family First has a purpose to promote its own particular views about marriage and the traditional family that cannot be determined to be for the public benefit
Family First stripped of charity status | Family First NZ

So the many charities Like the Salvo, Catholic care, religious adoption agencies and other religious associations that promote TM would no longer be regarded as charities according to the above article simply for expressing their view about TM. By promoting their view of TM they are being hateful because they are not being inclusive according to this logic. This is exactly what I have claimed.

And we're talking about churches being forced to hold SSM ceremonies against their will. Once again you are resorting to shifting the goalposts.

And we're talking about churches being forced to hold SSM ceremonies against their will. Once again you are resorting to shifting the goalposts.

And we're talking about churches being forced to hold SSM ceremonies against their will. Once again you are resorting to shifting the goalposts.

Once again these examples are in response to your claim that no on is being denied the right to express their view about TM. I can see you have misunderstood or missed the what we were talking about. Its a pity as I have gone to the effort of replying. So you need to address my response to your claim. The adoption agencies is a good example of being denied the right as a charity to express their view about traditional marriage. Many religious adoption agencies have had to close down as a result.

While I disagree with a church being threatened like that, it's rather hypocritical of you to claim that the church must have the freedom to speak against same sex marriage, but then say it's wrong for people to speak out against the church for being against same sex marriage.
Sounds like you are saying that freedom of speech is only acceptable if the speech is a position you agree with.

But the example isn’t about that. It’s the opposite. The church was being threatened to be blown up for creating a bill board expressing their support for TM. The point was about freedom of speech and that example is a clear denial of freedom of speech.

Kylie: Please show me examples of where a church has been forced to hold same sex marriage ceremonies.
Steve: Here's a case where a writer wasn't allowed to write for a Superman comic.
Do you hear the whooshing sound as those goalposts move?

No it’s exactly on point we wee talking about and I was responding to about your claim that no one is being the right to express their views about TM. It’s just that you totally missed it. So the whoosh is actually the point flying over your head. Lol.

And the complaint was withdrawn.

And once again, this was NOT an example of a church being forced to perform a same sex marriage.

The point is about freedom of speech. Why was he hauled up before the tribunal in the first place and put through suffering. Despite the accusation being withdrawn the damage was done and it is still a wrong against people being able to express their views on TM without any duress or consequences. They were still denied freedom of speech which is about being able to express a view without being taken to court at all regardles of the outcome.

To Be Continued...

ok no worries Steve

 

[Kylie]

Yes I said associations and extensions of the church and not the church itself. That means individual reps, schools, seminaries, universities, marriage celebrates who belong to churches, ect. I have already supplied those examples; you just plain ignore them and make up rationalizations why they don’t count.

I don't count them because they do not meet the other criteria you stated: "being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions."

So rather than go through the list again for you to dismiss I will post one at a time so we can determine if they count. First is Bishop Love’s case. He was denied his freedom of conscience by his own church. He had no recourse and was forced to resign from his job simply for expressing his belief in support of traditional marriage.
Episcopal bishop disciplined for opposing gay marriage says he plans to appeal Church-enforced punishment

By the way even you acknowledge that the above case comes close to support my claim. You claim it doesnt quite count because it wasnt an atheist who was doing the denying. This is irrelevant as the point is being forced to go along with SSM regardless of why was doing the forcing.

And I covered this already.

You can't claim the church is being forced to do something against its will when the church is the one that chose to do it.

I also never said it doesn't count because it wasn't an atheist doing the denying. My response to that claim, from post 814, was:

He wasn't the one being forced to perform the marriage though, was he? Seems like the problem here was that he was saying, "I don't want to have to perform same sex weddings, and I don't want anyone else to either." It seems like it's a case of no one is saying he has top perform them, but he isn't allowed to stop others from doing them.​

No when I say may not be happening in the Church I mean the Church itself. But entities associated with the church could mean a number of examples that I listed plus others I didnt list. Basically any religious person or entity that is associated with a church and who is being denied their rights. I have supplied ample examples of this.

No you have not.

You claimed that churches were being forced to perform same sex marriages when they did not want to. You have NEVER produced even a single example of this.

Instead, you've twisted your original claim into being about how people are getting called out for speaking against same sex marriage. Does this happen? Of course it does. But that's not what we were talking about, was it? You've moved the goalposts in an effort to make it seem like your claim was that people are being criticised for being against SSM because you know that your original claim that churches and churched owned venues were being forced to participate in same sex marriages.

Now, stop trying to change the subject and actually address the issue.

I never said that. I said that the new laws have caused people to be attacked and in some cases sacked, hounded from their positions on boards, threatened for simply proclaiming their support for traditional marriage (TM) between a man and a woman.

Once again you are attempting to move the goalposts.

In post 833, you said: "But what your failing to see is that with the current laws and definition changes has more or less made traditional marriage illegal."

You clearly state that the laws are making traditional marriage illegal.

And, of course, this has NOTHING to do with churches being forced to perform same sex marriage as you claimed.

I never said that. I said as a result of the marriage law change which is now classified as between 2 people so that gays can be included this now means that promoting TM which is between opposite sex is in conflict with that law. Therefore people are being attacked as a result of expressing their view for this as they say it harms gays. As a result peoples lives are destroyed when they suffered the consequences of those attacks such as being sacked, losing income or reputation.

Ah, so people are having their lives destroyed because they speak an opinion that a lot of other people don't like, and they suffer the consequences of it?

You do realise that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, right?

And, of course, this has NOTHING to do with churches being forced to perform same sex marriage as you claimed.

Your missing the point. Why was he hauled before the courts in the first place for simply expressing a view about TM. The damage was already done and his life was destroyed. Thats why he got such a large pay out. The point is even when people are found not guilty its the fact that they were denied the right to express their view without duress and that damage caused that is the wrong which you are completely overlooking. The Fire Chief was denied his rights to freedom of speech and thats why he was awarded damages.

You can't claim that people are being denied the right to express their views about marriage just because there are other people who think those views are harmful.

If it were Christians who were saying that marriage equality was harmful, and the gay people went to court to ensure that their right to express their views was recognised, would you be making this much of a fuss? Somehow I doubt it.

No we are not. I am responding to your claim that no one is being denied freed speech in expressing their views about TM and that is why I posted those examples if you go back and chech post #833. So it is you who is moving the goal posts.

No, you are wrong. We are most certainly talking about your claim that churches and church owned buildings are being forced to hold same sex marriages. You made the claim in post 794 that "we are seeing the priests themselves and any associated entity of the church like Church owned buildings, schools, reception venues being forced to hold same sex marriages, ceremonies, and receptions."

You made the claim, and I asked you to support it. Since then you have not provided a single example. Stop trying to move the goalposts and answer the question.

You say this example is not about being denied to hold a viewpoint and then acknowledge it’s about being denied holding a viewpoint.

Having to face the consequences of what you say is not the same thing as not being allowed to say it.

Even the quote above from the article states it’s about holding a viewpoint. In this case the viewpoint about TM. They lost their charitable status for promoting the view of traditional marriage because the arbitrator thought that taking that view denied same sex couples. This is exactly what I have been saying and you have been denying IE
“The board considers that Family First has a purpose to promote its own particular views about marriage and the traditional family that cannot be determined to be for the public benefit
Family First stripped of charity status | Family First NZ

So the many charities Like the Salvo, Catholic care, religious adoption agencies and other religious associations that promote TM would no longer be regarded as charities according to the above article simply for expressing their view about TM. By promoting their view of TM they are being hateful because they are not being inclusive according to this logic. This is exactly what I have claimed.

Irrelevant. This has NOTHING to do with churches being forced to perform same sex marriage as you claimed.

Once again these examples are in response to your claim that no on is being denied the right to express their view about TM. I can see you have misunderstood or missed the what we were talking about. Its a pity as I have gone to the effort of replying. So you need to address my response to your claim. The adoption agencies is a good example of being denied the right as a charity to express their view about traditional marriage. Many religious adoption agencies have had to close down as a result.

I'd be happy to move on to having a discussion about how people are not being denied their right to hold certain views about SSM. Does that mean you are abandoning your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform SSM against their will?

But the example isn’t about that. It’s the opposite. The church was being threatened to be blown up for creating a bill board expressing their support for TM. The point was about freedom of speech and that example is a clear denial of freedom of speech.

No it isn't. No one was denying them the right to express their opinion. But the freedom of speech that gives the church the right to express their opinion also gives other people the right to say they find the church's opinion a lousy one.

No it’s exactly on point we wee talking about and I was responding to about your claim that no one is being the right to express their views about TM. It’s just that you totally missed it. So the whoosh is actually the point flying over your head. Lol.

Once again, I'd be happy to move on to having a discussion about how people are not being denied their right to hold certain views about SSM if you are abandoning your claim that churches and associated entities are being forced to perform SSM against their will.

The point is about freedom of speech. Why was he hauled up before the tribunal in the first place and put through suffering. Despite the accusation being withdrawn the damage was done and it is still a wrong against people being able to express their views on TM without any duress or consequences. They were still denied freedom of speech which is about being able to express a view without being taken to court at all regardles of the outcome.

See? This is how you try to move the goalposts. You claim that churches and all that are being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will, and I ask you to support that.

Then you move the goalposts so you can pretend the conversation was always about people copping flack for expressing views about SSM that other people don't like.

Then you claim that you aren't moving the goalposts, and you accuse me of moving the goalposts when I try to get you back onto the original topic we were discussing.

Your efforts to derail the conversation are very clear for all to see.

 

[Bradskii]

So when a person of belief wants to push stipulate traditional marriage (only between a man and women) they are actually promoting something counter to the new law.

You are quite free to promote the more traditional forms of marriage as you see fit. But if you claim that marriage can only be the more traditional version and cannot include same sex couples then you are obviously wrong.

Many see that this is being hateful because it excludes gays and is even a breach of the law as it is promoting the opposite of the law.

If you demand that gay people be excluded then that is being discriminatory against gays. Don't do it, Steve.

Its very similar to whats happening with transgender ideology.

Focus, Steve. The thread is about ssm.

You say that redefining marriage will harm no one but if we follow the same logical reasoning for inclusion of same sex couples to marry based on equality then this opens the door for anyone to demand that their version of marriage should be included as well. That may include 3, 4, 5 or group marriages...

No. I say that redefining marriage HAS hurt no-one. It hasn't hurt you or anyone else. And if you want to run a slippery slope argument that people will want to marry their aspidestra or their pet poodle then how about we have a discussion about it when it happens. Keep a look out for a significant proportion of society who starts to push for pot plant matrimony and we'll have a nice chat about it.

Why redefine TM into a new mixed definition that will devalue marriage as a whole and at the very least devalue TM under the law.

My marriage has not been devalued. My wife and I still have the same comittment to each other. How has it affected yours? Is it less of a partnership because two women can now marry? Please let me know.

It’s not just about me; it’s about children and society as a whole. That is the issue I see with SSM. It was about autonomy, what the individual wanted, and their rights and not considering society or children’s rights.

You've lost focus again, Steve. The discussion is ssm. Not adoption. If ssm did not exist then gay people would still commit to each other and adopt children. Making their partnership a legal marriage changes nothing in a negative sense whatsoever regarding their children. In fact, giving the children a legal basis in regard to their parents could only be considered a benefit.

So not all marriage versions are the same and some do better than others.

Indeed. And the sex of the partners has very little to do with it. Do you want to argue against bad marriages now as opposed to ssm?

Once again you are not seeing the bigger picture. But you are also assuming that I am against allowing gays to marry.

I don't know what gave me that idea. Maybe the hundreds of words you frequently post decrying ssm and telling us that it's the start of the collapse of civilisation. Why do you think I have made that assumption?

The rest of your post is just more complaints about how ssm has affected marriages. It's a constant refrain with you. But you give no examples to support that position and I've asked for some more than once. And others have done so as well. So yet again, what negative affect does two women getting legally married have on your marriage?