Religion, all not just your ancestral strain, exists to demonize its 'opponents'. That's its point, that each individual strain knows the mind of a supernatural and others must be converted or at least marginalized. What's more arrogant than that? You can't debate with those who claim to see beyond the veil of reality. And the natural world is not dogma, quite the opposite. As for 'conservative libertarian', much like 'compassionate conservative' or 'progressive Christian', you're putting lipstick On a very ugly pig; you still cling to an ideology of theocratic control, you just don't want to be seen as a bad guy or a Neanderthal. Perhaps you could add a bro on there or another adjective like progressive; rebranding is powerful.
FYI and PSA, baked ham for our country based only by visiting the MB
- Thread starter kdsdawg
- Start date
Whether you like it or not, religion exists, and religious freedom exists. It's fine for the government to change its definition of marriage, but it doesn't change the religious definition of marriage. The redefinition of marriage by the gov't should in no way create a right that immediately allows individuals to supercede the rights of others, just as the legalization of abortion did not create a right that forced doctors to perform them, nor did it create a right that religious employers should have to subsidize it.
Let me ask you this.
Church in state that has banned gay marriage wants to marry Fred and Ted. Where do you come down on this issue?
Or how about what's going on with Alabama? Federal court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional. State court orders Probate courts to ignore order in clear violation of the Constitution (Supremacy clause). Where do you stand there?
If you want to puff on one that is your choice. I'm cool with that as long as it's not in my home
So you're answers would be a) let the church marry them and b) alabama state is wrong to not allow gay marriage. Correct?
Actually I think his answer is, loosely translated, 'my maturity level precludes me from answering in a reasonable manner'
Let the church marry a man and a woman! two men or two women get married call it a civil union or whatever you want. the whole point of their forcing this on religion is to be able to label denominations that will not perform them as hate groups, there by taking them from the tax exempt status they have now. In order to set up state sanctioned religion.
I have no problem with gays (in the context or their own homes), just do not try to tell me how I should accept my beliefs as wrong to accommodate someone who is attacking my beliefs.
I have no problem with gays (in the context or their own homes), just do not try to tell me how I should accept my beliefs as wrong to accommodate someone who is attacking my beliefs.
Your scenario is the government forcing a church to marry a gay couple against their wishes. I understand you think the church's rights are more important than the state's interest in protecting the rights of those wishing to marry. That's fine.
So change the question a little bit. What about a state where gay marriage is banned but a church wants to marry a gay couple? If you're consistent, your answer will be "church's right prevails" and church can marry the couple.
That right?
