Texas GOP party platform: You can pray the gay away!

[roo_ster]

I admire your abiding faith in the fed.gov's desire to promote religious freedom.

Hey, he's not using it, so what's he got to worry about?

[Balog]

Hey, he's not using it, so what's he got to worry about?

It never ceases to amaze me how the folks in the least populous and powerful religious groups (atheists, pagans etc) are so eager to enable the fed.gov to over ride religious freedom.

[White Horseradish]

I admire your abiding faith in the fed.gov's desire to promote religious freedom.

I just have a slightly more realistic outlook. And, mind you, I actually have lived under a regime that persecuted the religious in very real and tangible ways.

[onions!]

It never ceases to amaze me how the folks in the least populous and powerful religious groups (atheists, pagans etc) are so eager to enable the fed.gov to over ride religious freedom.

Please stop painting with the broad brush.There are atheists and pagans on this very board who would disagree.

Frankly I don't care if you want to worship a turnip.Just shut the hell up about it and don't shove it in my face.

[White Horseradish]

It never ceases to amaze me how the folks in the least populous and powerful religious groups (atheists, pagans etc) are so eager to enable the fed.gov to over ride religious freedom.

Have you ever considered that what you consider to be freedom for your populous and powerful group might not actually be freedom for them?

[Balog]

I just have a slightly more realistic outlook. And, mind you, I actually have lived under a regime that persecuted the religious in very real and tangible ways.

It's a given that once you give .gov the power to do something, it will eventually do it. No matter how "unrealistic" it seems right now.

Like Mak's point about gun registration. I doubt there were many Canadians laughing and rubbing their hands together at the thought of sending the mounties in to confiscate all the guns then put those damn Quebecois on the death camp trains. But registration must be opposed, because it eventually leads to confiscation, and confiscation leads to genocide.

I'm not saying that if this had gone the other way that tomorrow we'd have commissars holding guns to the head of priests forcing them to marry gay guys, but it's one step down a bad road.

Have you ever considered that what you consider to be freedom for your populous and powerful group might not actually be freedom for them?

The .gov not having the right to force people to do things against their beliefs seems to be of pretty universal benefit to me.

[Strings]

Which is why I would prefer removing the term marriage from the table completely.

Again: for legal purposes, you have civil unions, defined as I outlined previously. Want to be "married"? Find the church of your faith that will conduct the ceremony... but that has no legal status, it's ONLY a religious thing

[Balog]

Which is why I would prefer removing the term marriage from the table completely.

Again: for legal purposes, you have civil unions, defined as I outlined previously. Want to be "married"? Find the church of your faith that will conduct the ceremony... but that has no legal status, it's ONLY a religious thing

Which goes back to why we have marriage now, and why trying to make it into "any group of people who want to call themselves married" is silly.

[KD5NRH]

Does you pastor ever officiate a wedding for anyone not a member of the church?

Does your pastor ever officiate a funeral for anyone not a member of the church?

How does any given church deal with members who suddenly come out of the closet and want to get married soon after?  For most, excommunication isn't something that can be done overnight.

[Perd Hapley]

I thought we were talking about a church performing a gay wedding rather than renting out space for one. Those are not the same thing. I'm pretty sure a church can't have a hall for rent to whites only, and I'm not entirely sure I have all that much of a problem with that.

Don't want people you don't like getting in, make it private. Like, say, restricted to parishioners only. A lot of churches do, anyway.

So in the middle of telling us that churches won't be forced to marry same-sex couples, you're telling us churches won't be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs. That is, they won't be able to come out* and say "God opposes homosexuality, so do we; our wedding services and facilities are only for real marriages."

We've also been informed that Catholic children's homes can't follow their religious beliefs in adoption issues, if the government chooses to contribute to what is the church's rightful sphere (not the governments). That was by the same guy that argued for same-sex marriage licenses on the basis of "equal protection."

I guess churches are not as equal as the currently fashionable minority group.



*Yes, "come out." The closet is now the ghetto where the dissenters from sexual perversion** are expected to reside.

**Much as it may shock the pearl-clutchers among us, I find that "perversion" is the only suitable term, anymore. In the past, I would have just said "homosexuality," but that is now seen as excluding those that consider themselves transgendered, bisexual, or pescaphilic, or whatever their chosen vice may be.

[Strings]

>So in the middle of telling us that churches won't be forced to marry same-sex couples, you're telling us churches won't be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs. That is, they won't be able to come out* and say "God opposes homosexuality, so do we; our wedding services and facilities are only for real marriages."<

See, I have no problem with churches doing this. There are some caveats (mainly to stop someone from causing trouble and claiming "religious grounds" when there are none. The current discussion doesn't fall into this category).

>We've also been informed that Catholic children's homes can't follow their religious beliefs in adoption issues, if the government chooses to contribute to what is the church's rightful sphere (not the governments). That was by the same guy that argued for same-sex marriage licenses on the basis of "equal protection."<

Accept government funding, accept government rules.

Now, if you have a church-based adoption service that isn't funded at all with government money, I can't see allowing government to have a say in how it's run (beyond "minimum needs for the kids", and possibly "not allowing convicted pedophiles from adopting")

[makattak]

Accept government funding, accept government rules.

Now, if you have a church-based adoption service that isn't funded at all with government money, I can't see allowing government to have a say in how it's run (beyond "minimum needs for the kids", and possibly "not allowing convicted pedophiles from adopting")

I can't remember the case in Massachusetts, but the similar instance in Illinois that I recall, the private charities were not allowed to adopt children out without government support.

So, they aren't allowed to follow their religious duty of caring for orphans without government funds and also can't follow their religious convictions if they take government funds. Nice.

[Perd Hapley]

>We've also been informed that Catholic children's homes can't follow their religious beliefs in adoption issues, if the government chooses to contribute to what is the church's rightful sphere (not the governments). That was by the same guy that argued for same-sex marriage licenses on the basis of "equal protection."<

Accept government funding, accept government rules.

So you're OK with the government openly discriminating against Catholics?

[White Horseradish]

So in the middle of telling us that churches won't be forced to marry same-sex couples, you're telling us churches won't be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs. That is, they won't be able to come out* and say "God opposes homosexuality, so do we; our wedding services and facilities are only for real marriages."

I said no such thing. Are you sure you are replying to me?

[Perd Hapley]

I said no such thing. Are you sure you are replying to me?

You said you were OK with churches being barred from exercising racial discrimination, and then suggested that if churches couldn't openly discriminate, they could do it on the sly. You were making a parallel with same-sex weddings, so...

I just put your thoughts into different words, to help you better understand what you were saying.

[Strings]

>I can't remember the case in Massachusetts, but the similar instance in Illinois that I recall, the private charities were not allowed to adopt children out without government support. <

That would be improper. I could understand government oversight to make sure the kids are properly cared for. But nothing more.

>So you're OK with the government openly discriminating against Catholics? <

Every time you pop something like this off, you make me happier that you never accepted my invitation to stop in when the BACA convention was in St Louis

In no way, shape, or form did I say I was ok with blanket discrimination based on religion. You, however, based on what you write on this forum, are perfectly fine with it, so long as those being discriminated against follow a different faith from you.

[Balog]

>I can't remember the case in Massachusetts, but the similar instance in Illinois that I recall, the private charities were not allowed to adopt children out without government support. <

That would be improper. I could understand government oversight to make sure the kids are properly cared for. But nothing more.

This is the gulf between what is and what should be I see in a lot of libertarian thought. Even if you're pro open borders, it'd be silly to advocate them while we still have the welfare state. Even if you think taking .gov funds means you waive all rights to freedom of conscience, it's silly to say that when the .gov forces religious institutions to take them in order to perform religious duties.

>So you're OK with the government openly discriminating against Catholics? <

Every time you pop something like this off, you make me happier that you never accepted my invitation to stop in when the BACA convention was in St Louis

In no way, shape, or form did I say I was ok with blanket discrimination based on religion. You, however, based on what you write on this forum, are perfectly fine with it, so long as those being discriminated against follow a different faith from you.

Unless they've ever received .gov funds, then screw them amirite?

Me personally I only advocate blanket discrimination against folks who can't use {quote} tags.  

[Perd Hapley]

>We've also been informed that Catholic children's homes can't follow their religious beliefs in adoption issues, if the government chooses to contribute to what is the church's rightful sphere (not the governments). That was by the same guy that argued for same-sex marriage licenses on the basis of "equal protection."<

Accept government funding, accept government rules.

So you're OK with government openly discriminating against those who won't suddenly change their minds, and go along with the gov's new, idiosyncratic view of homosexuality?

As opposed to the govt simply remaining neutral on the issue.

[Strings]

>Unless they've ever received .gov funds, then screw them amirite?<

For as long as they are recieving government funds, the government gets to put whatever conditions on them that they wish. The problem that crops up is government saying "you must do X to even exist as an agency". Using the example given (Catholic adoption services), I believe that would be severe government over reach

>So you're OK with government openly discriminating against those who won't suddenly change their minds, and go along with the gov's new, idiosyncratic view of homosexuality?<

You don't even have a coherent argument.

Let's go through it just for you.

Catholic Adoption Agency accepts a government handout of $100 per kid they place. In return, CAA must abide by government anti discrimination rules (so Lutherans can still go through the CAA to adopt). Nobody sees a problem (because there isn't one)

Some court somewhere rules that gay couples can adopt. CAA SHOULD have the choice of a) continuing to accept government money, and abide by the new rules, or b) refuse further government money. If CAA chooses option b, but is forced to adopt children to gay couples (or non Christian, or whatever), that is wrong

[Balog]

>Unless they've ever received .gov funds, then screw them amirite?<

For as long as they are recieving government funds, the government gets to put whatever conditions on them that they wish. The problem that crops up is government saying "you must do X to even exist as an agency". Using the example given (Catholic adoption services), I believe that would be severe government over reach

When we get single payer healthcare we will all be "receiving .gov funds." I guess unless you choose to never seek medical care for anything then the state has the right to force you to ignore your religious beliefs.

Also, you may think it's over reach, but it's still the way things actually are and your proposals will still result in loss of freedom of religion. Saying "Well sure, in actual practice what I want will result in guys with guns forcing you to violate your religion, but I don't think it should be like that so it's totally cool."

[Perd Hapley]

You don't even have a coherent argument.

Please express the incoherency.

Let's go through it just for you.

Catholic Adoption Agency accepts a government handout of $100 per kid they place. In return, CAA must abide by government anti discrimination rules (so Lutherans can still go through the CAA to adopt). Nobody sees a problem (because there isn't one)

Some court somewhere rules that gay couples can adopt. CAA SHOULD have the choice of a) continuing to accept government money, and abide by the new rules, or b) refuse further government money. If CAA chooses option b, but is forced to adopt children to gay couples (or non Christian, or whatever), that is wrong

C) The government should not discriminate against an adoption organization for the perfectly unremarkable practice of disqualifying the sexually deviant. At the very least, the government should be neutral, so as not to impose or promote any particular view. If anyone is to be discriminated against, it would be an organization that takes the questionable step of placing children with the openly homosexual. This should be obvious.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Why don't we just ban sex altogether?

Nobody has any children, and we all die out, bickering over who gets to judge who and who goes where when they die.

And rooster, if you want to equate homosexuals with pediphiles, maybe you should up the anti to Rad Fem and start pushing to ban heteosexual men, since those guys are most likely to rape a woman.

Point: pediphilia is just another form of rape. It's not about orientation and it never has been. You sound just like those Rad Fems who blather about all straight men being rapists.

[Firethorn]

Hospitals have a long history of violating the wishes of their patients gay and straight, that's a hospital problem not one relevant to this discussion.

Yes, the state & federal benefits are a bigger one.

So you decided that anyone who opposes gay marriage is just a homo-hating neo-Bull Connor all by yourself? I actually respect that less than if you were just parroting the talking points. I also note who eager you are to central plan the economy, as long as it's being done your way.

Strawman.

There is no difference between people of different colors. There is a difference between men and women. Either you're the racist and think skin color is a valid difference, or you have some weird views on biology

Sure there is.  Starting with the genes for skin color and extending to somewhat divergent evolution in the distribution of genes, such as the sickle-cell due to it's resistance to malaria.
 

Why is that a problem for you? They're consenting adults, who are you to judge who they choose to have sex with? Get out oft heir bedroom! Stop being just like a racist!

Sticky widget - IE due to my social training I find it very, very 'icky', but I can't immediately think of a reason to ban it(between consenting adults) outside of procreation due to the increased risk of bad recessive genes.

You don't like religion, check. I suppose that's an insight into why you view "slightly different paperwork" as a horrific affront to basic human rights, but "squashes religious liberty" as not worth considering.

I think that 'slightly different paperwork' is your own invention, not mine, and I don't support squashing religious liberty so this amounts to a couple strawmen.

That's why they call them "unintended" consequences.

It's simple enough - I'm something of a fence sitter.  I support gay marriage, but I also support the 'right' for religious organizations

BTW, if your religion opposes gay marriage, then don't get gay married.  Don't go to gay weddings.  But there are plenty of religious institutions that are willing to perform the ceremonies.

As such, I look at it like this:  Nobody here has pointed out how gay marriages harm them.  Closest I see are slippery slope arguments.  Thus it becomes a question of religious freedom - on the one hand a group wants the ability to get married.  On the other side a group wants to prevent that.  An imposition on THEIR religion.  It reminds me of how Muslim countries would impose a special tax on non-Muslims.  We don't allow that sort of stuff.

Ergo, in the best interests of freedom my position is that the government allow gay marriages but have strong protections in place that allow religious organizations to not conduct/support weddings that they do not support.

Which is why I would prefer removing the term marriage from the table completely.

Again: for legal purposes, you have civil unions, defined as I outlined previously. Want to be "married"? Find the church of your faith that will conduct the ceremony... but that has no legal status, it's ONLY a religious thing

Word.  Oh, and I agree with all the other posts of yours I see.  Generally more eloquent as well.  Take the state's money, follow the state's rules.  Don't take the state's money and you should be much more free to operate, though there are limits.

[Balog]

"Prove how gun registration directly affects you. Bah, those are just slippery slope arguments, worrying about unintended consequences is for losers."

Supporting gay marriage with a caveat of strong religious protections is like supporting illegal amnesty cause they totally promised to get tough on enforcement this time. I'd call it naive, but it's really just that you don't care about the consequences but can't admit that.

You should really stick to telling us your vision for centrally planning the economy.

[Ron]

I'm still trying to figure out how inviting the government as a third person into the "marriage" contract is keeping the government out of the bedroom, that is the first absurdity.

Redefining marriage by judicial fiat as something other than what it is, a man, a woman joining together and becoming a family group themselves, is the second absurdity.

The culture that holds sway over our government is the culture that holds the power of coercion. Government uses brute force to impose its world view. Cultural Christianity has to some degree historically wielded that blunt object of persuasion just by nature of the fact that a majority were culturally Christian. The worm has turned and I would say a cultural shift has occurred. The basic world view of the majority no longer line up with the historic cultural Christian consensus.

Christians have compromised themselves and supported activist government since the very beginning of our country. Being the majority in the culture blinded us to the potential dangers. The lie that as long as the correct people were in authority moving the levers of power we would be alright was bought hook line and sinker.  We will now reap the whirlwind of straying away from a purely classical liberal limited government model. Someone else is taking a turn at those levers, they aren't Christian but they are still moralizing busy bodies. Just not the morality of which we are accustomed.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - CS Lewis