I Wear Pants;1077529 wrote:Can religions discriminate simply because they say they're a religion and it's their belief?

Are they above all laws as long as they say it's what they believe?

In very general terms, the answer to the first question is "yes", the second "many but not all"

fish82;1077615 wrote:Your fallacy comes where you equate the "non-religious" with atheists. They're not the same thing.

83% of Americans identify themselves with a religion. These vast swaths on non-religious believers you envision don't exist.

I Wear Pants;1077642 wrote:83% of Americans identify themselves with a religion. These vast swaths on non-religious believers you envision don't exist.

1. I didn't say "vast swaths." You're doing it again...you really need to work on that, Junior.

B. "identifying" =/= "religious," i.e. practicing said religion regularly. I don't see why you can't grasp this...other than you just can't get past your hatred of religion in general.

queencitybuckeye;1077640 wrote:In very general terms, the answer to the first question is "yes", the second "many but not all"

Exactly. And this is how it's been for several hundred years now, with good reason.

As a country, we respect people's sincerely held religious beliefs to the extent it's not an outrageous burden to accomodate them. Numerous Catholic Bishops/Archbishops have been speaking out on this issue, and I suspect the Obama administration will have to do something for fear of pissing off the 1/3 or so of Americans who are Catholic.

sleeper;1077543 wrote:I think marriage is given a tax break because the government wants to give people the incentive to marry each other and have children. These children are in a much more protective state because they have two caregivers in the same household able to provide care for that child. I don't really see any reason why two gays can't get married and provide the same stable household environment; thus receiving the same tax break.

Agreed. Our government legislates morality all the time. They do so with incentives and sin taxes.

I Wear Pants;1077530 wrote:Then don't ****ing marry gay people. It's pretty damned simple. No one has proposed forcing Catholics or Baptists to marry gay people in their churches.

But you're an **** if you think that the government should have a ban on them.

I don't think that at all.

I have been clear on here that there's no reason to have State sanctioned marriage at all. One should not require the permission of the state to enter into a contract with regards to a relationship.

Devils Advocate;1077468 wrote:Ok then.... Link Please.


Or I'll take a couple guesses


Sex only during Menstration? or maybe plan My family as it happens, since it's God's will?

The best way to learn would be to take the course.. but here's some help

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

http://www.gentleparents.com/mccarthy.html

fish82;1077651 wrote:1. I didn't say "vast swaths." You're doing it again...you really need to work on that, Junior.

B. "identifying" =/= "religious," i.e. practicing said religion regularly. I don't see why you can't grasp this...other than you just can't get past your hatred of religion in general.

1th, fuck you for the junior comment asshole.

Second, why can't you grasp that even if they aren't "practicing said religion regularly" there are a ton of people who believe the ideas of their particular faith (or what they've been told to believe by their parents/pastor/whoever).

Thirdly, where are you getting your idea that people aren't religious or don't base their ideals and opinions on something off religious ideals even if they don't meet your criteria of "religious"? Show me some stats that make you believe a large majority of that 49-55% aren't religious or at least hold that opinion for religious reasons. Or even if not a stat a reason at all.

Con_Alma;1077706 wrote:I don't think that at all.

I have been clear on here that there's no reason to have State sanctioned marriage at all. One should not require the permission of the state to enter into a contract with regards to a relationship.

Then I apologize for the idiot comment. Reps for you.

Con_Alma;1077706 wrote:I don't think that at all.

I have been clear on here that there's no reason to have State sanctioned marriage at all. One should not require the permission of the state to enter into a contract with regards to a relationship.

You continue your efforts to undermine the effort to provides gay people with the fundamental right to state sanctioned marriage.

I Wear Pants;1077805 wrote:1th, **** you for the junior comment ****.

Second, why can't you grasp that even if they aren't "practicing said religion regularly" there are a ton of people who believe the ideas of their particular faith (or what they've been told to believe by their parents/pastor/whoever).

Thirdly, where are you getting your idea that people aren't religious or don't base their ideals and opinions on something off religious ideals even if they don't meet your criteria of "religious"? Show me some stats that make you believe a large majority of that 49-55% aren't religious or at least hold that opinion for religious reasons. Or even if not a stat a reason at all.

I never said a large majority weren't. I merely called into question your assertion that "There is no reason that isn't religious to block those people from those things." The basic principles thought in Statistics 101 pretty much back me up.

Ok, I've asked several times in this thread already. Give me the reasons that are not religiously based as to why gay people can't get married.

I Wear Pants;1077860 wrote:Ok, I've asked several times in this thread already. Give me the reasons that are not religiously based as to why gay people can't get married.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

By the way gay people can get married in the United States.

majorspark;1077880 wrote:http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

By the way gay people can get married in the United States.

Only in some states.

I don't think I agree with that article. Because the argument seems to be that marriage creates procreation and stable families. With divorce rates as they are the second part of that is discredited and with adoption and other options there are today the procreation argument isn't infallible either.

Comparing it to polygamy or bestiality or pedophilia (the latter two weren't in the article but are brought up by people who use the same argument sometimes) is a distraction IMO.

Of course only my opinion on that.

But that argument does seem to stem from the "marriage has always been x" statement. And tradition is a terrible thing to base decisions on.

Reps for the post though it was helpful.

QuakerOats;1077015 wrote:I hope the Church remains in complete defiance of this rule. I know the bishop of the Youngstown diocese said, in writing, "we will not" comply with this ruling. I hope they make enough of an issue of this that the majority of the Church members take their votes elsewhere; it is high-time the Church told the radical left to shove it.

The church has defied the rules of molesting children for years, so I'm sure they'll defy these rules as well. The church is more corrupt than the US government......well......maybe.

sleeper;1077324 wrote:So, can we apply your logic and reasoning to other laws in existence? For example, since abortion is legal, your opinion that it should not be is invalid because the law(facts) are on my side? LOL

#sleeperwins

I would love to post their financials, is it public data? I really have no idea, but it sure as **** should be.

You actually did win there. I'd rep but I have to spread it around some more.

Devils Advocate;1077431 wrote:If you think that the rythm method is more effective than a rubber or hormonal treatment to stop ovulation, I think you should look in the ol mirror and redefine your definition of tard.

Birth Control Methods: Comparison Chart

Method of Birth Control	How Many Couples Using This Method Will Get Pregnant in a Year?	How Well Does This Method Work in Preventing Pregnancy?	Can This Method Also Protect Against STDs?
Consistent Abstinence	None	Completely effective	Yes
Birth Control Patch ("The Patch")	8 out of 100	Effective	No
Birth Control Pill ("The Pill")	8 out of 100	Effective	No
Birth Control Ring ("The Ring")	8 out of 100	Effective	No
Female Condom	21 out of 100	Less effective	Yes
Male Condom	15 out of 100	Moderately effective	Yes
Birth Control Shot	3 out of 100	Effective	No
Diaphragm	16 out of 100	Moderately effective	No
Emergency Contraception	1 to 2 out of 100	Very effective	No
IUD	Fewer than 1 out of 100	Very effective	No
Fertility Awareness	25 out of 100	Less effective	No
Spermicide	29 out of 100	Less effective	No
Withdrawal ("Pulling Out")	27 out of 100	Less effective	No
Not Using Any Birth Control	85 out of 100	Not effective	No

Notice that fertility awareness is ranked 11 ot of thirteen? it barely edges out spray and pray.

Anal sex and gay sex are 100% effective against pregnancy too.

I Wear Pants;1077881 wrote:Only in some states.

Yes. And if you are gay and want to get married immediately move to one of them. Or stay where you are at and petition your state representatives. Their choice.

majorspark;1077887 wrote:Yes. And if you are gay and want to get married immediately move to one of them. Or stay where you are at and petition your state representatives. Their choice.

That's not a very good argument.

Either there should be a good reason for the ban (which if you agree with you article you posted you have or at least feel you have) or it shouldn't be illegal. People lately have this "well if you don't like it just move" attitude instead of bothering to actually think if something is just or not.

Why does the "well if you don't like it just move" argument not apply to things you don't like as well?

I Wear Pants;1077903 wrote:Why does the "well if you don't like it just move" argument not apply to things you don't like as well?

It does apply. Just have not found a reason so aggregious that I choose to pick up and move.

majorspark;1077919 wrote:It does apply. Just have not found a reason so aggregious that I choose to pick up and move.

See I would disagree that it's a compelling argument for most anything important.

an argument that could have been made to support the bigot who would not allow mixed racial marriages in their states The Lovings could move to a state that allowed interracial marriage. Luckily the Supreme Court saw state sanctioned marriage as a basic right that should not be denied by any state.

I Wear Pants;1077938 wrote:See I would disagree that it's a compelling argument for most anything important.

Its the law of the land. You are not going to get concensus on this issue nationally among our 300+ million citizens. I suggest you petition your state and federal representatives to push for a constitutional amendment allowing the feds to define marriage. Good luck.

majorspark;1077958 wrote:Its the law of the land. You are not going to get concensus on this issue nationally among our 300+ million citizens. I suggest you petition your state and federal representatives to push for a constitutional amendment allowing the feds to define marriage. Good luck.

Was this your answer to people calling for an end to segregation, would it have been yours when women wanted the right to vote, end to slavery, etc?

"It's the law of the land" is a terrible argument. If you don't feel there is a compelling reason for a law to ban something or someone from doing something we should say "that is a bad law".

What I'm asking is, what is your reason for thinking gay people shouldn't been allowed to get married? And if not why don't you simply state that they should be allowed to? I'm not saying you should feel compelled to go campaign for it or anything.

isadore;1077940 wrote:an argument that could have been made to support the bigot who would not allow mixed racial marriages in their states The Lovings could move to a state that allowed interracial marriage. Luckily the Supreme Court saw state sanctioned marriage as a basic right that should not be denied by any state.

The court only ruled that states can't use race when defining their marriage laws. Their is a difference between skin color and sexual preference.

majorspark;1077972 wrote:The court only ruled that states can't use race when defining their marriage laws. Their is a difference between skin color and sexual preference.

What is that difference?

You and I didn't choose to be straight anymore than we chose to be white or black.

I Wear Pants;1077971 wrote:Was this your answer to people calling for an end to segregation, would it have been yours when women wanted the right to vote, end to slavery, etc?

Like I said I do not equate skin color or gender with sexual preference. This argument is as dumb as saying if we let the gays marry people will want to marry their pets.

I Wear Pants;1077971 wrote:"It's the law of the land" is a terrible argument. If you don't feel there is a compelling reason for a law to ban something or someone from doing something we should say "that is a bad law".

I think allowing women to kill their babies in the womb is bad law. Thats not my point. Its the law of the land. My point is you have to deal with it. You can either engage in the political process or get radical outside of it. At least the gays can move and marry and carry on their fight.

I Wear Pants;1077971 wrote:What I'm asking is, what is your reason for thinking gay people shouldn't been allowed to get married? And if not why don't you simply state that they should be allowed to? I'm not saying you should feel compelled to go campaign for it or anything.

I believe the family unit is the basic block that makes up any society. Men and women are different and each has a unique and equal perception of life. A natural balance if you will. I believe a monogamous relationship between two adults of the opposite sex bound together by contract to a higher authority is the best means of building a lasting and productive society. Thats my personal opinion. It would be nice if we all could go out and do our own thing and no one else in society would be affected. This is where true died in the wool libertarians run amok. They only want to apply law when individuals are directly affected not indirectly affected.

So we get together and draw up a social contract. Otherwise known as gubmint to flesh these things out in a law and order manner. As you know I prefer these types of societal issues to be handled by state and local government. I believe it is supported by the constitution. One of the reasons I don't get worked up into a lather that another state is marrying the gays, some local school district in toledo paints an Obama campaign poster on the hall in their school, or a public institution in Deirborn Michigan want to set up foot washing stations for the mooslims.