Same sex marriage

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by WAN, Dec 27, 2016.

  1. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Argumentation via Meme ignored on sight.
     
  2. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,825
    Likes Received:
    32,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Still no response to how you are harmed by a same sex marriage occurring on the other side of the country...

    Can’t come up with an example?
     
  3. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,825
    Likes Received:
    32,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ZPTYSAYSBIOS
    Also
    RMUA
     
  4. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How exactly are you defining "in principle?"
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
  5. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why use them in the form of acronyms in the first place?
     
  6. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, THIS is the post that I originally responded to. Who is claiming "harm?" It seems clear that you are talking about "religious businesses" considering that you mention that in the same sentence as your question, "who is harmed by a same sex couple being wed on the opposite end of the nation?"
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
  7. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well it's NOT a violation of the new covenant. Again, we don't think of marriage as part of the law. A law is able to be broken. However, marriage cannot be broken by two men or two women attempting to be married under God, because the Bible makes it clear that the marriage is between a man and a woman. If they get married, no law has been broken.

    It's not about interpretation, because they simply cannot actually point to anything in the Bible which supports same sex marriage. They don't deny that the only way that the Bible defines marriage is that it is between a man and a woman, but this doesn't mean that they can't attempt to get around it. Basically their argument boils down to this ridiculous nonsense: Even though the Bible only explicitly refers to marriage between a man and a women, same sex marriage must also be marriage in the eyes of God, because there is nowhere in the Bible which specifically says that same sex marriage is not marriage. So basically, it's not what that they're seeing which they are interpreting, it's what they're NOT seeing which they are using for their argument.

    Why is it valid?

    There IS an absolute way to prove that the Bible defines marriage as being between a man and a woman - the fact that marriage is not spoken of in any other terms other than between a man and a woman. It is clear for all to see.

    Sure, but are you saying that you've heard this pro-same sex marriage argument coming from a particular denomination? If so, which one?

    That is correct. The question that I could post to a non-Christian is, if you became convinced that Christianity was true, would you think that same-sex marriage should be allowed? I posed the original question to @cd8ed, but he didn't reply.

    So private clubs aren't allowed to make a profit?

    Anything further on this?
     
  8. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is all correct, but it seemed that @cd8ed was saying that he cannot see how any Christian wedding services business could claim that they are harmed from providing a service to a same sex wedding and therefore, if there is no harm, then they should be able to provide the service because there can be no other reason for the refusal. So I was making the point that literally zero Christian wedding services business involved in the various discrimination cases have stated 'harm' as their reason for refusal.
     
  9. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The harm would be violation of their rights, of which I agree. Since religious tenents are up for highly subjective interpretation, they can say that even engaging in business is a sin for them. But my position is not limited to freedom of religion. Freedom of association and private property rights are also violated by such anti-discrimination laws applied to private businesses. I am not going to go into that on this thread. It needs it own thread as a separate topic. I only mention it to point out what they are claiming the harm is.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  10. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well it makes sense to call that harm, but my point is that none of them have referred to "harm" as their reasoning.
     
  11. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There has to be a case for the court to hear in order for it to overturn a preceding ruling. Every argument that could be used in overturning the gay marriage ruling was already tried in efforts to change the Court’s decision on mixed race marriage.

    And now we have over 100,000 gay marriages that would have to be nullified - and that would cause true harm financially and to their children. And each year that passes adds to the adverse impact on American citizens should gay marriage be outlawed.

    I just don’t see this happening while Roberts is Chief Justice.
     
  12. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,825
    Likes Received:
    32,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one is harmed from a same sex couple being able to wed. That’s the entire point.
     
  13. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,825
    Likes Received:
    32,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is false, I did reply. I stated that it would depend on how it was proven. If Jesus or God presented themselves and said we should stone all homosexuals that would probably immediately happen. If it is not absolute though and leaves room for interpretation then people will still disagree with the overall meanings. I believe God would find much more serious issues to address first though, two people that love each other and are harming no one else would probably be fairly low on his list (in my opinion).

    False again, I have always agreed that small businesses should be allowed to discriminate if they so choose — I just do not believe that others should be able to discriminate against them as well plus the list of who they discriminate against should be posted.

    Please stop falsifying my positions
     
  14. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. So then why the hell did you mention "Christian businesses?"
     
  15. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,825
    Likes Received:
    32,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No idea, you would have to quote the post where I did.
     
  16. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who is "we"? It still comes down to interpretation. To some, two men even claiming and having had a ceremony for marriage is a violation of the biblical law.

    Why does there have to be an explicit support? The argument and interpretation is that since the old covenant is gone, the old definition of marriage is also gone. To refer to its historical definition means nothing for the current one, of which there is no explicit one. Even the couple of times Jesus does mention marriage, there is nothing that outright says only man and woman. Just the use of the most common type of marriage, which, IIRC was the only type legally allowed then.

    Because there is no absolute when it comes to religion. The best you can tie absolutes to is the various denominations, because when they organize, they explicitly stated what their beliefs are. To make a minor example, 7th Day Adventists believe that the Sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday. If you claim to be a 7th Day Adventist, then because of that you should be following that interpretation of the Bible. I, on the other hand, as a general Christian not tied to any of the denominations, can easily interpret the Sabbath in many ways. I could claim it it actually on Thursday, owing to the many changes in calendar use across the centuries. I can interpret the scriptures to mean that the actual day of the Sabbath within the calendar is not important as long as a day is selected to observe it.

    Given that the Bible is a hand picked selection of various scriptures and not everything written is in there, not to mention the various overbearing actions of the church across the centuries, and the fact that mistakes could easily be made (hence the Adulterer's Bible) without being caught, there is no guarantee that all the details are correct in there. It is one of the reasons of why I let the Holy Spirit no guide me whenever I find confusion or conflict, instead of the Bible. Furthermore, as noted above, since Jesus would have been targeting his words to the audience of his time, he would not have used SSM as any kind of example.

    There are denominations and individual churches here in the US that have made same sex couples members of their Church, and have performed and made clear that they happily perform same sex marriages. Have I personally ever seen or heard of an official press release or other notice that the overall organization has shifted their stance? No, but it's not something that I have gone looking for either.

    Good luck on getting that reply from them. I replied because it's a question on a public thread, thus available for any to answer. And it stands. A base tenent of Christianity, as I interpret it, is that one can only become a Christian by willing choice. Thus as a Christian, I cannot force my religious views on those who do not choose to become Christian. Thus, i cannot seek to have my religious definition become the civil definition, especially in a country which has religious freedom.

    If they are listed as a not for profit entity, no. Charities and churches are not the only organizations that can be not for profit. Other private organizations can as well. There are all kinds of rules as to what they can and can't do for income and how much they are allowed to keep on hand.

    No. I worked a 15 hour day yesterday, so I wasn't exactly energetic enough for a case search. Today isn't much more promising, but I hope to get to it by this weekend at the latest.
     
  17. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    By claiming a religious right to do so, one is claiming that to not be allowed to do so is a violation of rights and thus harm. Aside from the fact that many have outright claimed that their religious rights are violated.
     
  18. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not making an argument on the probability of the decision being overturned. Right now it's slim to none and Slim is headed out the door. I am only noting that SCOTUS decisions have been overturned before by later SCOTUS decisions, so to claim that it cannot is a denial of reality.
     
  19. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, you mentioned religious businesses. Why?
     
  20. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,825
    Likes Received:
    32,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because those are the only people I have seen arguing they are harmed by same sex unions — and they are not even harmed by the union itself but rather the ceremony... and harmed is a stretch.

    Who do you feel is harmed by a same sex union?
     
  21. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you are referring to same sex wedding services discrimination cases?

    Nobody.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
  22. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True. But some posters here seem to think the court will overturn a ruling without hearing an actual case filed by someone with standing (someone who has actually been harmed). I was pointing out that every argument claiming harm was exhausted in attempts to overturn the mixed-race wedding ruling by the Court. For decades. There just isn't an argument that can show that same sex marriage causes anyone harm.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  23. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,825
    Likes Received:
    32,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes

    I agree
     
  24. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do I have a feeling you two are actually arguing the same point but from different angles so that it seems like you are arguing different points?
     
    chris155au likes this.
  25. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, there definitely needs to be an actual case with merit of some sort. And honestly I see a case dealing with whether or not a right to refuse service for a same sex wedding exists, before one on the legality of a same sex marriage comes up, since they are completely different issues. My biggest point is that just because we can't conceive of a way to show such harm currently, it doesn't mean someone can't do so in the future.
     

Share This Page