What an interesting time in which to live.
Great pleasure is taken in the growing acceptance of gay rights:
The fight for marriage equality continues to dominate global headlines, but a new survey reveals a surprising divide on the acceptance of homosexuality around the world.
Part of the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, the “Global Divide on Homosexuality” poll found generally broad acceptance of homosexuality in North America, Europe and much of Latin America, while Russia, much of Asia and predominately Muslim nations were more inclined to reject it.
Researchers found that a staggering 88 percent of participants in Spain felt that homosexuality should be accepted, followed by 87 percent in Germany, 80 percent in Canada and 60 percent in the United States. On the flip side, a mere two percent of Pakistani participants felt homosexuality should be accepted, followed by just one percent in Nigeria.
But now acceptance of the gay lifestyle is not enough any longer.
Opinions on marriage equality, LGBTQ rights and religion run across an extremely large spectrum. Just look at your friends on Facebook and you’ll see what I mean. But there’s one opinion that a friend of mine posted on one of my marriage equality statuses that I just can’t accept any longer: “live and let live.”
Now, let me say that this friend is an extremely dear friend, and our families have been close for over 20 years. I’m positive that he meant no offense by it. If I had to guess, it was his way of saying, “Hey, I’m cool with you being gay.”
However, the moment I read his comment, I realized that that is the problem. To live and let live is not enough anymore. It’s no longer sufficient for our straight friends to say, “Hey, I have no problem with you being gay,” or, “I have gay friends.” Guess what? We have no problem with you being straight, and we have straight friends as well.
It’s also not OK for members of the LGBTQ community to say things like, “As long as it doesn’t affect me, I’m OK with it,” or, “I don’t have that problem where I live or where I work.” None of that is acceptable anymore. What we really need is for LGBT people and our allies to stand together and say that enough is enough when it comes to homophobia.
The author demands that everyone become an activist for the LGBT community. God help you if you don’t. If you expected tolerance to be a two way street you’d be mistaken.
Refuse to bake a cake? You need to be destroyed.
Refuse indoctrination and you’re a hate group.
Two gay entrepreneurs hosted Ted Cruz for a discussion Israel. The response? Boycott them! wails the “Rainbow Jihad”:
The irony is that the gay backlash to Cruz’s hosts might engender sympathy with gay marriage opponents. Cruz spent Friday afternoon talking off the record to pastors in Nevada; he would spend Saturday evening at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition’s “spring kick-off.” He was already entering those rooms as the sponsor of legislation that would allow states to ban gay marriage, no matter what the Supreme Court decided this year. Now, he’d be the latest veteran of a culture war waged by gay rights activists. First they came for Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla. Then they came for the Memories Pizza restauranteurs in Indiana. And then they came for Weiderpass and Reisner and Cruz.
“The swarm of locusts we’ve dubbed ‘the Rainbow Jihad’ on my show is so out of control, it now threatens it’s own benefactors,” said Steve Deace, a conservative Des Moines radio host. “If these cultural Marxists won’t even tolerate leaders in their own community like Reisner having a peaceful dialogue with the other side, then it’s not a movement but an inquisition.”
And if you happen to belong to the Coalition of African-American Pastors and happen to believe in traditional marriage? Well, then you have no right to free speech.
The LGBT community even goes so far as to equate their so-called struggle to the civil rights struggle of the 50s and 60s…The civil rights struggle was for blacks to be seen as humans…The civil rights movement didn’t infringe on anyone else’s right. It didn’t seek to take anyone’s rights away…
But same-sex marriage advocates don’t only want the right to marry – they want to take away our rights in the process…They stand proudly for same-sex marriage, but dare anyone to disagree. If you believe in traditional marriage then they want to fine you, jail you, and taunt you.
For them, tolerance is a one way street- an excursion on the “Mywayorthe Highway.”
Some do seem to get it:
Roseanne Barr was practically drawn and quartered by the liberal gay left in 2007 when she had the nerve to call them out for something that some of us have thought but kept quiet about. “Never once in my 54 years have I ever once heard a gay or lesbian person who’s politically active say one thing about anything that was not about them,” said Barr. “They don’t care about minimum wage, they don’t care about any other group other than their own self because you know, some people say being gay and lesbian is a totally narcissistic thing and sometimes I wonder.”
Sometimes I wonder, too. Why do I say that? Because after writing about gay culture, health and political issues for 30 years, it’s only the men and women I see working through non-gay groups — with a broader vision of equality and social justice — who seem to care about interests other than their own. Not only that, but among LGBT-rights advocates there is an angry intolerance of anyone who isn’t willing to toe the line of the far-lefties who are most visible and vocal in the organized gay political community. Just this week I’ve been appalled to see some friends on Facebook boasting of “de-friending” others who dared to “like” a Republican, and justifying their harsh behavior by invoking the usual rhetoric of the persecuted gay victim of Republican/evangelical/heterosexual oppression. It doesn’t seem to cross their mind that they are every bit as intolerant as they their former Facebook friends allegedly are. They don’t seem aware that their behavior is every bit as hurtful as their “oppressors.” I suspect that it doesn’t even occur to them that the tolerant society they claim to want requires dialogue, friendly disagreement and mutual respect. It’s not a one-way street where “we” get all we demand and “they” get nothing more than our self-important “friendship.”
The LGBT community has got to engage in more self-scrutiny and rein in this fascism lest they steel resolve against them in those whose minds they would like to influence in their favor.
And speaking of tolerance, check out the response to Bruce Jenner by the left once they learned he was both a Republican and a Christian. See how left wing tolerance really works.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
A bakery lost a civil suit for not baking a lesbian couple a wedding cake.
They were ordered to pay $135,000 to the fat girl couple.
But they don’t have the money.
So, a ”GoFundMe” page was set up.
In 9 hours they had $109,000 in commitments to help out with their fine.
Then GoFundMe took down their page.
No money will be collected through that site.
They (GoFundMe) decided the bakery is a hate-filled intolerant business.
So, they chose to discriminate against the owners by refusing to allow them to do business through their site.
Hmmmm….
Seems like the site is doing the exact same thing the lesbos claimed the bakery did.
(BTW, if you look at the couple, they might have got the cake, inhaled once each, it disappeared, and they’re claiming they never got it.)
Well researched piece, Dr. John – I’m surprised I had never heard that story about Roseanne Barr
The LGBTQ movement was never about equality, as the actions of the gay mafia clearly demonstrate. There is no amendment – nor even a single comment -in the Constitution about homosexuality…much less any right to homosexual behavior. The 1st Amendment clearly states that no law shall be made that infringes on the free expression of religion. Yet in this topsy turvy modern culture, religious rights are blatantly trampled upon by the demand for religious beliefs to be denied in obiesence to homosexual aggrandizement. The homosexual movement is behaving in a fascist manner. The fact that the gay hoteliers who engaged in civil discourse with Cruz are being boycotted by gay advocacy groups for the crime of merely talking to someone with an opposing viewpoint speaks volumes about the motivations of said advocacy groups.
No more evidence of mental instability and confusion exists than the existence of the group “Queers for Palestine”. Despite the hyperventilatory ravings from homosexual groups falsely claiming persecution by Christians who simply do not wish to violate their religious principles via participating in a gay “wedding”, muslims are literally killing homosexuals via hanging, stoning, beheading, and throwing them off buildings. Yet the cultural apparatachiks insist islam is “tolerant”, as they portray Christians as viscious bigots for not wanting to be forced into violating their religious doctrines.
It is insane. It is dishonest. It does not bode well for any semblance of liberty in our nation’s future.
@Pete #3:
What “religion”, Pete? MY religion? MY religion says gays have the right to marry. A friend of mine has a religion that informs him that Blacks should be slaves, and his family has worshiped that tenet for generations. How do you square all of the different and conflicting “expressions of religion” with secular law? Laws ARE made that infringe on the free expression of religion, no matter WHAT the 1st Amendment says.
Do you ever get the feeling that there is only a finite amount of “liberty” to be had, no matter how many people it must be apportioned among?
Every cultural battle that pops into my shallow mind seems to be a struggle over some thin sliver of the “liberty pie,” and invariably when one side finesses a narrow victory, it comes at the expense of another side.
In spite of the noble efforts of constitutional originalists like Justice Scalia, there is little public interest in progressing into a future constrained by the dogma of the past.
Popular consensus – yes, the “mob’s” opinion – changes with the breeze. That same “breeze” could, if sustained long enough in one direction, alter the very constitution your liberty depends on. Nothing lasts forever.
I have to disagree there. The same AMOUNT of “liberty” will exist, it will simply be enjoyed by different factions. The oppressed will become the oppressors. The privileged will suffer.
Hasn’t this cycle repeated itself often enough throughout history that it should come as no surprise today? Aren’t the people who are on the losing end of such exchanges of advantage ALWAYS the ones who cry “doom”?
Bear in mind that I’m not supporting, approving or condoning any such change as I am pointing out above. It only occurs to me that this isn’t something new.
So, which elderly, straight, white Dem candidate will gays flock to?
Joe Biden, Bernard Sanders, and Jim Webb or Hillary Clinton?
All of them old (over 69 on Inauguration Day) all of them white, all of them straight.
Wasn’t their political party supposed to be the inclusive party of diversity?
Look elsewhere guys.
None of these old folks do NOT have your best interests at heart.
@nanny G #5:
Try again, Nanny.
Your statement is the logical equivalent of saying that “ALL of these old folks DO have your best interests at heart.”
I don’t think that’s what you meant, or is it?
More to the point, the democratic party IS the party of diversity and inclusion. It IS the party that has advanced gay rights, unlike the GOP, which has OPPOSED all… ALL gay rights legislation. Which has OPPOSED including gay groups in the RNC conventions. Which has worked feverishly to defeat REPUBLICAN candidates who support equal rights for gays.
And exactly what HAS the Republican Party done for gay rights?
I mean, besides NOTHING?
I mean, besides fighting it at every turn?
Absolutely NOTHING.
EVER!
All of those “OLD, STRAIGHT” guys (and gals) in the Democratic Party don’t HAVE to be gay to support gay rights. In fact, it gives their support more legitimacy in-so-far as their support is obviously NOT a conflict of interest.
Which one will gays “flock” to?
Any of them.
Which ever one of them gets the nomination.
Did you really have to ask?
@George Wells:
Liberty does not include infringing upon and transforming the liberties of others.
@Nanny G:
Didn’t you list Hillary?
As to the tolerance of the tolerant left, my wife’s own twin sister unfriended and blocked her. For, my sister-in-law is liberal and my wife is conservative. Now, my wife has never posted her thoughts on her sister’s page or gone there to argue any of her inane posts. No, it was just intolerable for my wife to have her own, contrary, opinions and post things that demonstrate how liberalism fails and conservatism succeeds. Not too long ago after a family get-together at which the subject came up, she refriended my wife but has since, in a short time, dropped her again. She never, however, refriended me.
She and her equally liberal husband live about a hundred yards from us.
It is obvious the left feels they and their ideology cannot survive when cast in the light of evidence, logic or facts.
I wonder, does the gay society ever argue about which letters should appear first? What will they do when they have run out of letters of the alphabet? Now we have to throw a Q in there; what does that stand for, “question mark”?
@George Wells:
George, you are either missing the point of what I wrote, or are deliberately trying to misdirect from the point.
In the context of the time our Constitution was written, it was based upon Judeo-Christian principles. One of the founders, John Adams, IIRC, even stated the Constitution was written for a Christian nation, and would work for no other.
You claim “your religion” says ‘gays have the right to marry’, as if that trumps the religious tenets of Christianity that clearly proclaim engaging in homosexual acts is wrong. Under the wording of the 1st Amendment, if you have a recognized religious belief system that professes a belief in homosexual marriage, you would be able to exercise your religious belief. What you refuse to acknowledge is that you don’t get to trump the religious beliefs of those who hold homosexuality to be immoral and abnormal. What you and the homosexual lobby are vehemently unwilling to accept is the fact that Christians have – under the 1st Amendment – the right to not be forced to participate in something that violates their religious beliefs. The pathetically weak attempt to equate the antebellum efforts of slave owners to misuse Christianity as a justification for slavery fails on the simple fact that Christians opposed to being forced to violate their religious beliefs via participating in homosexual “marriage” are not preventing homosexuals from declaring themselves “married”. The irony of the gay lobby in such propaganda is that they are in actuality the ones equivalent to the antebellum slave owners, trying to force their will upon the unwilling. Oh, and I have to wave the BS flag on your claim that there is any legitimate Christian denomination that teaches blacks should be slaves. Aryan Nation nutjobs who formed a pseudo-church to try to justify their racism don’t count.
George, it is a simple concept that one person’s liberty ends when it implies infringement upon another. It is no surprise that the left wants to characterize the Constitutional concepts forged explicitly to limit the infringement of the government upon the individual as “dogma of the past”. This bedrock dogma prevents the leftist from imposing his malevolence upon society. It is relatively easy for the propagandist to portray these founding principles as out of touch with modern cultural ideas, particularly in light of the efforts the left has engaged over the last 30-40 years to ensure students are not taught about the true meaning of these founding principles.
What the two lesbians did to the Christian bakers in Oregon is fascism. What the gay mafia has done to the NYC gay hoteliers who met with Cruz is fascism. There is no tolerance from the absolutely intolerant gay movement. You talk of slices of liberty pie, in the same manner that leftists propagandize economics – as if the only way for someone to get a bigger piece of pie is to decrease someone else’s piece. You fail to see that you can bake your own pie, while I can bake mine.
This fascist attempt to force Christians to violate their religious beliefs over homosexual marriage will not produce anything positive, and is much more likely to result in growing backlash against homosexuals.
@Nanny G: #1
Actually, they had what would be a reasonable excuse, if their actions did not expose the hypocrisy:
“The fundraising site doesn’t allow crowdfunding campaigns for those who have been found guilty of violating laws.”
In reality, they allow funding campaigns for convicted drug dealers, child molesters, and killers:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/gofundme-will-raise-for-murderers-not-christian-bakeries/
It should be noted that the complaint which resulted in the canceling of the gofundme campaign was brought by one of the Kleins’ competitors, Lisa Jones of “Cupcake Jones”.
I guess that if you can’t defeat business competition with quality, you can do it with manufactured outrage.
@Bill #7:
I agree with that, Bill.
When two different religions believe in fundamentally different things, there is no freedom for one religion to infringe upon or transform the other. The 1st Amendment was specifically NOT designed to establish one religion over another. The 1st Amendment DID “clearly state that no law shall be made that infringes on the free expression of religion.” But it DIDN’T open up a free-for-all, can-of-worms opportunity for different religions to go to war with each other (over differences in ideology) without lawful consequences.
A “liberty” that might be infringed upon would be a liberty to receive timely treatment in an emergency room. Another “liberty” might be for an emergency room doctor to refuse to treat patients who he believes live lives of a sort he conscientiously objects to. If these two liberties collide, a conflict arises that must be resolved.
I don’t pretend to know the answer to the question of which one of these “liberties” should trump the other, or how the two should be reconciled so that a balanced apportionment of liberty is achieved. What I DO know is that the current JINDAL-Louisiana law will fail upon judicial review, precisely because it “infringes upon and transforms the liberties of others.”
@George Wells:
.
And what religion might that be?
And what religion might that be?
Actually, there may be little public interest in the dogmas of the past, but those very dogmas offer a number of benefits, including societal cohesion. But I remember that you do support cultural hegemony, i.e. gradualism.
At that point, liberty no longer exists. It will simply be a political façade to give one power over another.
As usual, you are wrong.
The Democratic Party is a party of special interests. But eventually, one special interest will have to trump another special interest. When the fight comes between the gay special interest groups and the black religious groups, who do you think the Democratic Party will side with? Do you think the Democratic Party will be willing to throw millions of religious blacks under the bus for the lesser in number queers?
More of your tired straw man hypotheticals. Or perhaps you would like the list the thousands of legal cases against emergency room personnel and doctors that show your hypothetical has actually happened?
Your understanding of the concept of the First Amendment seems to be seriously lacking in, what did you call it? Oh, yeah, your shallow mind. The First Amendment was specifically designed to eliminate the possibility of the designation of a “national” religion, favoring one over the other. But that did not prevent the states from having a “state” religion, which a number of them did.
One interesting element I see goes back to the Roseanne Barr interview cited in the post. Is the gay community so self-absorbed with gay marriage that one’s positions on real issues, like energy, the economy, foreign policy, etc. don’t matter unless you have the “correct” opinion on gay marriage?
@Brother Bob:
Yes.
But you also need to know that “marriage” is simply the smoke screen. The real goal is power. The power to change our entire system of government by abolishing the First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and the right to think as you will. You will not be allowed to disagree with homosexuality or you will be made to pay.
Gay marriage is nothing more than a distraction issue, a sleight of hand to pull you away from the issues that will truly sink this nation like a National Debt that is over 18 trillion dollars with no real sign of turning around….
@George Wells:
Now, that would imply that you believe that anyone would have the RIGHT to withhold acceptance or compliance with activities or beliefs they objected to. However, unless you want to clearly denounce what these radicals try to do by terrorizing businesses and individuals to accept, without exception, the things THEY believe in (regardless of what anyone else may believe) then you support the view that what everyone has the freedom to do is agree with the LGBT group and nothing else.
@George Wells:
George, that should be easy. Neither. If your church is doing wedding for gays, then they certainly should have to perform one for you. If you choose to go to a different church where they don’t do weddings for gays, then you should not be able to get one there.
I’m lost again there, George. Tell me again how an emergency patient coming into a trauma center is identified as ‘gay’. And tell me how the doctor comes to ‘believe that an emergency patient lives a life of a sort that he objects to” ? I asked once, do they have ‘gay’ tattooed on their forehead? I may be wrong but I don’t believe there is a church that has as a principle: Any doctor that is a member of this church can not treat a gay person in an emergency room. Maybe so, but I’ve not heard of it.
strange, I live in Louisiana and I have no idea what that ‘law’ is. Guess I’ll have to google. The US Constitution says no one should make a law infringing on religious beliefs of anyone (paraphrased) that means for or against. I can’t tell you that you can’t get married in your church and you can’t tell me I have to get married in mine.
George, I’m sure you’re thankful that your brain miswiring was not of the type that Bruce Jenner has had to suffer with. I don’t think his can be reconciled.
@retire05 #11:
Ah, the queen of the irrelevant question strikes again!
When the 1st Amendment guarantees the free expression of religious beliefs, that freedom does not depend upon how many other people share YOUR belief.
There is no threshold of popularity below which your religious belief isn’t protected.
“WHICH” religion doesn’t matter.
“Cultural hegemony”? What on Earth is that? “Gradualism”? Meaning that things change “gradually”? Yeah, I think that’s how the world usually works. We all get old GRADUALLY, not in sudden jumps or spasms of aging. And I have commented before that lasting social change usually occurs rather slowly, but that doesn’t mean that social revolutions do not occur. But what’s that got to do with the price of tea in China?
That’s cute!
At what point in History were there no oppressed people?
“Might Equals Right.”
“Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” (Thanks to Janis Joplin for pointing out THAT little kernel of wisdom.)
Like I pointed out before: At any given time, there are some who enjoy temporary “liberty”. These are the “privileged.” Those less “privileged” enjoy considerably less “liberty,” regardless of the public relations bull hockey they are continually fed: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.” RIGHT!
It’s ALWAYS been all about gaining power over others. It has ALWAYS been more efficient to take from others. Like I said, there is a fairly fixed amount of “liberty” to go around, and at any given point in time, some have it and some don’t. Over time, WHO has the most (of whatever you are bothering to count) tends to change. What DOESN’T change is that “Liberty,” “power” and “money” are all approximately the same. You are born with none of them, and you exit with exactly the same amount you started with.
Well, now, it wouldn’t then be a hypothetical, would it? Kind of like the intellectual exercises that ask: Which of the boat’s occupants do you throw overboard so that the remaining ones can survive? The hypothetical case needn’t have ever occurred for the question to have relevant meaning.
The hypothetical was used to point out two legitimate freedoms that have the potential to be in conflict with each other. There is no “law” that eliminates the possibility of such a conflict.
@George Wells:
I believe Kris Kristofferson gets credit for that. He wrote it, she just sings it.
@George Wells:
Ah, but George, you’re the one that said: ” MY religion says gays have the right to marry. ”
You made the point, don’t keep it a secret.
@George Wells:
Try, The law of common sense.
@Bill #15:
Your analysis does not agree with mine.
Note that I used YOUR words: “to infringe upon or transform the other,” but that I associated them with two different and conflicting religious beliefs (and the “exercise” there-of), BOTH of which SHOULD enjoy equal 1st Amendment protection. NEITHER of them can “infringe” on the other, yet they MUST, and this conflict has to be resolved.
I recognize that from time to time, there are different constitutionally guaranteed rights (or freedoms, or whatever you want to call them) that come into conflict with each other, and that the vast majority of cases that make it to the Supreme Court are exactly these. For this reason, the Religious Freedom laws that are popping up in gay-hostile legislatures will likely end up being decided by those nine black robes. I’ll be curious to see what they decide.
Ahhhh… All black or white, one extreme or the other again, isn’t it?
Those are the only two options?
Never mind that neither of them had anything to do with my comment:
All this means is that if one religion chooses to marry gays, and another religion chooses NOT to, NEITHER of them can impose the exercise of their beliefs on the other.
@Redteam:
“(Thanks to Janis Joplin for pointing out THAT little kernel of wisdom.)”
“I believe Kris Kristofferson gets credit for that. He wrote it, she just sings it.”
Well, yes… it WAS Janis who COMMUNICATED the point to the public, wasn’t it?
Kristofferson wrote it, but Janis was the voice. So?
“Try, The law of common sense.”
Sorry, Red. There is such a thing as “common sense,” but there is no “law of common sense.”
For someone who insists that word meanings don’t change over time, you play surprisingly fast and loose with them.
George, you are trying to claim some authority for your view that gay marriage is sanctioned by a religion as if that would make it more OK than a religion authorizing cutting out beating human hearts, eating the flesh of enemies, kidnapping then enslavement of children, raping and kidnapping of women, and so on.
But, in other places, you abhor this appeal to authority.
So, which religion is it?
The Aztecs are gone.
So are the Fore’ of Papau New Guinea.
Muslims are still kidnapping and enslaving and raping.
But they also are tricking gays into outing themselves so they can kill them.
So, it must be some other religion you are (almost) citing.
@Nanny G:
Don’t expect an answer from George. He trades in dishonesty. But I’m sure you know that already.
Janis Joplin was a radical left winger, a drug addict, slut and basically a freak. No surprise George would quote a line from one of her songs. But she could sing. I used to go to LouAnn’s to watch her sing. She couldn’t do her gigs in Orange, since it was a dry county and Joplin needed bars to sing in. A friend of mine’s mother owned LouAnn’s and everyone knew that Joplin was a good singer (for that time) but crazier than a shite house rat.
@George Wells:
Ah, and the queen of obfuscation strikes again. If dishonesty was a dollar, you’d be the richest man in the U.S.
Just because you’re queer, you’re not persecuted. And of course, you resort to the liberal mantra of “the privileged.” Wanna claim how you really are a conservative again, George? Hell, when you’re on a roll of lying, why stop? And the Scripture you quote seems to be another thing you don’t understand. By why should you. You are so painfully uninformed on so many other things. Scriptures are NOT “public relations bull hockey”. And that particular Scripture says the meek will “inherit” the Earth, not own it.
Damn, you’re stupid.
@George Wells:
Google gives Roger Miller credit for recording it first. Kristofferson second, then Joplin recorded it. I don’t think I ever heard Joplin sing it. I was not a fan of hers.
If you will show me a list of all recognized laws and if ‘common sense’ is not on that list, then I will acknowledge that it doesn’t exist.
Just read that one of the Supreme Court justices said in the arguments yesterday that if they legalize homo marriages then clergy would be forced to violate their beliefs. I’m not usually one to question the justices, but he must be crazy.
George, okay here it is: Sorry, Red. There is such a thing as “common sense,” but there is no “law of common sense.” “The Law Of Common Sense”http://blogs.edf.org/texascleanairmatters/2013/05/02/the-law-of-common-sense/
You forgot that I know how to search Google.
Here is one of the comments: Justice Kennedy :
Wow, is he screwed up. There are no children of same sex couples. My biology lessons indicate it takes one male and one female to create children.
Anyone want to correct me on that?
As @Iowahawkblog said so well a while back: “I fully support separation of church and state. Especially for people whose church IS the state”
@Nanny G #23:
No, Nanny G. I claim no such “authority”, and I won’t dignify your equating gay marriage to cardiostomy – or cannibalism – with a response.
The point I have been laboring to make is that it doesn’t make a lick of difference whether there are 50 million adherents to a particular religious belief, or only one. The government doesn’t favor religious beliefs simply because a lot of people believe in them.
Some mindless sheep are led into churches, where “authorities” tell them exactly what to believe, and that is the extent of their faith. Other people develop their own, private beliefs independently of “authority.” Each type of faith is equal under the Law. When it comes to religious freedoms, the 1st Amendment doesn’t place a premium on popularity.
That’s why it doesn’t matter WHICH religion YOU belong to,
and it doesn’t matter WHICH religion I belong to.
So: NO. I didn’t “site” a specific religious denomination. Retire05 was hoping for one, for reasons I cannot imagine. Perhaps she believes that “faith” cannot be maintained independently from the reinforcing acclamation of large numbers of people who remain in an identical state of delusion. “Mass psychology.” Who knows?
No, the point I was making was that when one religion holds one belief as “true” while another religion holds the same belief to be “false”, and they BOTH have a constitutionally protected right to “exercise” their beliefs, there is the potential for conflict to arise. History is littered with the corpses of true believers who held opposing opinions of one detail of scripture or another and were unable to reconcile or tolerate such differences of opinion. I suspect that the culprit that emboldens such violence is the faith-encouraged belief that YOURS is the correct perspective, and that all others MUST be wrong.
I don’t see it that way.
@retire05 #25:
My dear, sweet, R05!
How hard you try to find something to keep our discussions alive!
Never said I was.
If you bothered to actually READ what I posted instead of just scan it for “hot-button” terms to attack, you’d have noticed that my point was that “oppressors” or “the privileged” did NOT remain a class of fixed individuals over time, but that its members changed with the shifting winds of politics. I’m ALREADY “privileged,” and consequently have little reason to attack my class. But the WORD isn’t without real meaning, regardless of who abuses it.
Uh…yeah… Who said anything about OWNING it?
LOL. We’re all just renting, remember?
And sorry to further disappoint you, but I’m heading to New Hampshire on Thursday for a week or so, so you’ll have to spit at something else while I’m gone.
@George Wells:
George, as far as I know, it only takes one person to make a church. So as long as the state you’re in allows unions of two like bodies, then you can perform a ceremony with your chosen other. You just can’t make someone else join your church or do something for you that a fellow church member would do. And that doesn’t mean that you can require a clergy of a different religion to perform a ceremony for your religion that goes against his religion. As you well know, some religions use snakes in their church services, but that doesn’t mean they can require you to use one in your church service.
that’s a rather silly statement. Of course it matters which religion someone belongs to. Because they only follow religious dictates of their church, not for another church (say of gay people) that want the other church to have to believe what they do or be required to participate in some activity of the gay church just because they belong to ‘some’ church. The heterosexual church should not interfere in the homosexual church activities and vice versa.
Sorry George, but I think you’re the delusional one on that matter. When you ‘proclaim’ that “MY religion? MY religion says gays have the right to marry” then it is a reasonable question for someone to ask you what religion it is that has that belief. If you’re truthful, you should have no problem stating which one it is. Even if it’s the First Gay Churcfh of George, then just say so.
That’s true but it’s also true that government shouldn’t favor your religious beliefs just because you desire them to do so.
It is rumored that they now have internet service in New Hampshire, but don’t quote me on that.
@Redteam #32:
“It is rumored that they now have internet service in New Hampshire, but don’t quote me on that.”
Don’t believe every rumor you hear. I have a cell phone, but it gets no “bars” in Bennington, NH. I have to drive to Antrim, NH to get enough reception to make a call. The home I am emptying out is “disconnected” from phone landlines. No TV (also disconnected.) The computer I am writing with is a desk-top, and I don’t travel with it. Sorry, you’ll have to do without. Just like in the “old” days. You DO believe that there’s such a thing as having too much of good thing, don’t you? Well, BUCK-UP, soldier!
@Redteam:
It is also rumored that George believes his presence here at FA will be missed. Another delusional thought on his part.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means” (Inigo Montoya, Princess Bride)
George is still trying to convince us that medical personel are magically endowed with special powers of GAYDAR to detect homosexuality so that they can refuse treatment. He has yet to have provided any proof of his conspiracy theory, or even real world accounts showing this magical power in use by health professionals. But we are now given to expect such claims by George to be the truth by virtue of ‘the word of George’. I am very curious about this ‘religion of George’ and whether it has qualified for and been awarded it’s 501 c status.
@Ditto:
George claims some homos have Gaydar and some don’t. That’s why I asked if a gay person might have it tattooed on his forehead so that doctors would be sure not to treat them accidentally in an Emergency room. He doesn’t like that idea.
Ah!
The memories of youth!
I used to frequent the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles.
Janice Joplin sang there quite a bit.
She carried her Southern Comfort on stage with her, called it her voice corrector.
I also overheard a couple bikers there on night saying she was going to sing at a certain biker bar in Compton that weekend.
I went there, too.
She was phenomenal.
People have been pouring through the SCOTUS transcript for clues as to ramifications of a ruling either way come June.
Here’s a part of the debate I had missed:
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2015/04/i-dont-see-how-you-could-possibly-allow-that-minister-to-say.html
In this exchange Anton Scalia and Miss Bonauto go back and forth about what happens to STATE-sanctioned officiating at church weddings IF the gay side is made a matter of constitutional law.
Apparently, Scalia points out, many ministers would lose their right to legally officiate at ANY weddings simply because they won’t do gay weddings!
As long as this issue is a STATE, not federal, law there can be ”religious exemptions.
BUT, if it becomes Federal law there cannot be.
Read it for yourself.
@Redteam:
It sort of depends on what they find shoved up their butts. This can be a sure giveaway.
Here is a little of the discussion, part of which I find humorous, especially when the justice points out that she is trying to redefine marrage and then she says she’s not sure if a state would recognize that as a ‘marriage’. I guess if it’s ‘redefined’ it could assume any meaning that was desired. Why would it have to be limited to 2 persons?
“page 5: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, you say join
10
in the institution. The argument on the other side is
11
that they’re seeking to redefine the institution. Every
12
definition that I looked up, prior to about a dozen
13
years ago, defined marriage as unity between a man and a
14
woman as husband and wife. Obviously, if you succeed,
15
that core definition will no longer be operable.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No. My question is
23
you’re not seeking to join the institution, you’re
24
seeking to change what the institution is. The
25
fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex
pg 6: “relationship and you want to introduce into it a
2
same-sex relationship.
Page 17: JUSTICE ALITO: Suppose we rule in your
18
favor in this case and then after that, a group
19
consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage
20
license. Would there be any ground for denying them a
21
license?
22
MS. BONAUTO: I believe so, Your Honor.
23
JUSTICE ALITO: What would be the reason?
24
MS. BONAUTO: There’d be two. One is
25
whether the State would even say that that is such a
Page 18: Official
Alderson Reporting Company
18
1
thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are
2
definitely going to be concerns about coercion and
3
consent and disrupting family relationships when you
4
start talking about multiple persons.
But I want to also just go back to the wait
6
and see question for a moment, if I may. Because —
7
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, I didn’t understand
8
your answer
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what if there’s no —
18
these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it’s not — it’s
19
not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous
20
marriages that existed in other societies and still
21
exist in some societies today. And let’s say they’re
22
all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all
23
lawyers.
24
(Laughter.)
25
JUSTICE ALITO: What would be the ground
Official
Alderson Reporting Company
Page 19
1
under — under the logic of the decision you would like
2
us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic
3
of denying them the same right?
4
MS. BONAUTO: Number one, I assume the
5
States would rush in and say that when you’re talking
6
about multiple people joining into a relationship, that
7
that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage,
8
which is on the mutual support and consent of two
9
people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within
10
the fundamental right —
11
JUSTICE ALITO: But — well, I don’t know
12
what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage
between two people of the same sex is not something that
14
we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial
15
break. Maybe it’s a good one. So this is no — why is
16
that a greater break?”
The entire argument is at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_2dq3.pdf
@Nanny G:
You are not allowed to use GoFundMe in situations related to criminal offenses. The baker took some bad advice and refused to resolve the issue and requested it to go this far. Those FAT women you referred to are protected under state law (I mean, that is what the right is championing isn’t it? States Rights? This is what the state did).