When two worldviews collide.

[ralliann]

"Marriage" is not a "biblical term". It is not exclusive to nor derived from the bible. Marriage long pre-dates the bible. Calling a union of two people a "marriage" is not an infringement of your religious rights.

Yes, it can. But I know many of you do not care.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, it can. But I know many of you do not care.

I mostly don't believe that it could, which is a sort of not caring if you like. But you still haven't given a legal reason the existence of SSM violates your right to practice religion.

 

[ralliann]

I mostly don't believe that it could, which is a sort of not caring if you like. But you still haven't given a legal reason the existence of SSM violates your right to practice religion.

I already did. It's scriptural between male and female to set apart their offspring in relation to each other. Males are not husbands to each other, females are not wives to each other. Same sex legal partnership Takes nothing from you, your not victims at all, in civil legal benefit.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I already did. It's scriptural between male and female to set apart their offspring in relation to each other.\

Your scriptures are legally irrelevant.

Males are not husbands to each other, females are not wives to each other.

So says your interpretation of your scriptures.

Same sex legal partnership Takes nothing from you, your not victims at all, in civil legal benefit.

It does take nothing from anyone to use the same terms for such a partnership of two adults regardless of their sex or gender (as the Supreme Court has ruled), so if a civil authority is issuing marriage licenses, then it can not likewise differentiate between couples based on the composition of their pair. Based on the "full faith and credit", no state or subdivision thereof, can differentiate otherwise on marriages or partnerships granted by another state.

 

[ralliann]

Your scriptures are legally irrelevant.

Exactly, you could care less. When it comes to religious freedom and not infringing on that it should matter. But you all say, your religion is irrelivant.

So says your interpretation of your scriptures.

Exactly, only your views are legally relevant.
I already acknowledged all this.

It does take nothing from anyone to use the same terms for such a partnership of two adults regardless of their sex or gender (as the Supreme Court has ruled), so if a civil authority is issuing marriage licenses, then it can not likewise differentiate between couples based on the composition of their pair. Based on the "full faith and credit", no state or subdivision thereof, can differentiate otherwise on marriages or partnerships granted by another state.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Exactly, you could care less. When it comes to religious freedom and not infringing on that it should matter. But you all say, your religion is irrelivant.

I said your scriptures are irrelevant. Specifically to the laws of the United States.

Exactly, only your views are legally relevant.
I already acknowledged all this.

Your religion does not get to define marriage under the law. It's just that simple. And it doesn't impinge in your right to worship.

 

[ralliann]

I said your scriptures are irrelevant. Specifically to the laws of the United States.

Your religion does not get to define marriage under the law. It's just that simple. And it doesn't impinge in your right to worship.

I know. We have already established who is calling the shots. Including what worship is too.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I know. We have already established who is calling the shots. Including what worship is too.

This statement makes no sense. Who has told you what worship is?

 

[Paidiske]

When it comes to religious freedom and not infringing on that it should matter. But you all say, your religion is irrelivant.

Religious freedom gives you the right to believe as you choose, and to live in accordance with that belief. It doesn't give you the right to control how others believe and live.

So it's not that your religion is irrelevant; it's highly relevant to how you live. But it's not relevant to how a democracy frames laws around what we might call religiously sensitive matters.

This statement makes no sense. Who has told you what worship is?

Many Christians see worship as a much broader category than participation in defined ceremonies, but as living a life in accordance with their faith convictions. (So, for example, I can say that my church running a food bank is part of its worship). In this case, for @ralliann, if I have understood her correctly, not articulating a blasphemous understanding of marriage (in her view) is also part of her worship.

And you know what, as far as that goes, fair enough. But I still think there's a distinction to be made between "I don't recognise this as a valid marriage," and, "I think the terminology of the law should reflect my view."

 

[Hans Blaster]

Many Christians see worship as a much broader category than participation in defined ceremonies, but as living a life in accordance with their faith convictions. (So, for example, I can say that my church running a food bank is part of its worship). In this case, for @ralliann, if I have understood her correctly, not articulating a blasphemous understanding of marriage (in her view) is also part of her worship.

Seems like a horrible way to live. One hour a week was enough for this guy. It's fine if others want to do more or think more is "church", just not the apparatus of the state. We (still) have legal separation in this country. (Not yours, the church is all up in the state's business, and legally so. smh.) If she doesn't want to consider the gay couple at the end of the block as "married", that's her business. (Though I reserve the right to think her a bigot for doing so.)

And you know what, as far as that goes, fair enough. But I still think there's a distinction to be made between "I don't recognise this as a valid marriage," and, "I think the terminology of the law should reflect my view."

I wish she'd explain hersef instead of just insisting that she is put-upon and then not saying how. If she's taken work as an agent of the state and can't act according to the law, that's a problem, and not a "religious discrimination" one.

 

[Paidiske]

If she's taken work as an agent of the state and can't act according to the law, that's a problem, and not a "religious discrimination" one.

I think it's not a one-size-fits-all phenomenon. There are situations where an employer can make reasonable accommodations. But if you're, say, working in a family law capacity or the like, and you don't want to deal with the legalities of marriage, I don't see how that can work very well.

 

[ralliann]

This statement makes no sense. Who has told you what worship is?

You seem to know what mine is, or you think is sufficient. you gonna define that fir me as well.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You seem to know what mine is, or you think is sufficient. you gonna define that fir me as well.

I don't care what you worship. What I have been trying to figure out (and you refuse to explain) is how the state designating the relationship of two persons of the same sex as a marriage violates your freedom of religion.

 

[Whyayeman]

I know. We have already established who is calling the shots. Including what worship is too.

You have the human right to religious observation and practice. What more do you want - a say in other people's rights?

You seem to be arguing for less than equality for a section of society. Marriage is too good for some?

 

[ralliann]

You have the human right to religious observation and practice. What more do you want - a say in other people's rights?

You seem to be arguing for less than equality for a section of society. Marriage is too good for some?

Same sex marriage is not equal according to scripture. To force those of us who know this from scripture to acknowledge it as the same violates my free exercise. That is the point. And obviously you all are deciding concerning what is or is not valid concerning these things.

 

[Whyayeman]

And obviously you all are deciding concerning what is or is not valid concerning these things.

I do my best to respect people's religious beliefs, including yours. I have none myself, of course, so am not bound by interpretations of the Bible. You must have noticed that repetition of the 'Scriptural basis' of your position has made little impression here.

Can you respect my opinion that marriage between people of the same sex is valid? Maybe you can say how it is that the 'free exercise' of your religious freedom is curtailed; perhaps by explaining what specifically you cannot do because of the law on same sex marriage.

 

[ralliann]

I do my best to respect people's religious beliefs, including yours. I have none myself, of course, so am not bound by interpretations of the Bible. You must have noticed that repetition of the 'Scriptural basis' of your position has made little impression here.

Can you respect my opinion that marriage between people of the same sex is valid? Maybe you can say how it is that the 'free exercise' of your religious freedom is curtailed; perhaps by explaining what specifically you cannot do because of the law on same sex marriage.

Yes, I can and have respect.....You are not but don't see it.
I can respect civil union as the same rights as marrriage. I am not going to protest etc, to deny you that (equal rights by law). I believe a civil government has no business taking that from you. We are not a theocrasy. It would be cruelty in some cases not to.
And for you to consider it Marriage for the equality it gives each in that relationship. After all civil marriage is what we have seen throughout history. So of course you would consider it "marriage", even speaking of it as just that. I am not even attempting to make that illegal.
What I am addressing is my religious freedom to not be legally bound, or expect punishment of law in any form whatsoever to dissent on my religious conviction on what/how I address it that's all. What you are asking me to do is show "respect" (honor) homosexual relations, in action and deed with regards to you..I am asking of you what you ask from me, to respect that I cannot do that. It was a constitutional right, but all that is threatened now, in this culture.

 

[Whyayeman]

What I am addressing is my religious freedom to not be legally bound, or expect punishment of law in any form whatsoever to dissent on my religious conviction on what/how I address it that's all. What you are asking me to do is show "respect" (honor) homosexual relations, in action and deed with regards to you..I am asking of you what you ask from me, to respect that I cannot do that. It was a constitutional right, but all that is threatened now, in this culture.

I don't know of anything the law binds you to do about other people's relationships, married or any other kind. Your religious freedom is really not under any kind of attack. As I have reminded you, religious freedom is a human right.

Please make clear what constitutional right you believe is threatened by same-sex marriages.

(I have not said anything about my marital status anywhere here, but you will see from my profile that I am married. To a woman, as it happens. I have no axe to grind.)

 

[ralliann]

I don't know of anything the law binds you to do about other people's relationships, married or any other kind. Your religious freedom is really not under any kind of attack. As I have reminded you, religious freedom is a human right.

Please make clear what constitutional right you believe is threatened by same-sex marriages.

(I have not said anything about my marital status anywhere here, but you will see from my profile that I am married. To a woman, as it happens. I have no axe to grind.)

Making it legal to fire me from a job, if I address you as a partner, to another. Your relationship as a union, instead of marriage Etc.
Say I work with you, as a homosexual person. You get Married. You introduce your partner as wife or husband, as married. I should not be able to be demoted, or fired or legally suffer any repercussions, For responding by addressing them as your partner, your relationship as a union. That is the sort of thing I am talking about. My Child at school should not be disciplined for following that address. Etc. We see this kind of thing happening today with gender ideology.

 

[Paidiske]

I think the difficulty in the sort of situation @ralliann raises here is that it's about more than the definition of marriage, or even religious freedom. But deliberately (for example) and publicly refusing to recognise a legally married person as such could, depending on the circumstances, tip over into meeting the definition of bullying, harassment, or the like. Workplaces have a legal responsibility to protect their employees from being on the receiving end of that, so... yeah, they need policies against it.

I don't think there's any easy way to avoid that. If it is such a strong point of conscience that you can't even make a mental distinction between marriage in the civil, legal sense, and marriage in a more expressly Christian sense; and you feel you cannot find a way to politely avoid offending your colleagues, and it's a common enough issue to create problems for you in the workplace, then it might not be the right workplace for you.

Honestly, though, that's a pretty extreme situation. I mean, I don't usually ask people "How's your wife/husband/spouse/partner?" "How's Michelle/Jane/Kate/John?" will usually do fine, and doesn't make any statement of my assessment of the validity of their relationship.