New Declaration, Same Old Anti-Gay Message

[Darkhawk]

No, it's not. The First Amendment is there to keep government out of the churches, not churches out of the government.

What do you think establishment of religion is, and why do you think yours should get to do it?

[Jainarayan]

You'd do well to review the writings about it, the SCOTUS decisions and the Constitution itself. Article VI, Section 3 kicks religion right out of government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

Another link to add, and the text:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

The bold is mine, highlighting that government is to stay out of religion, and religion is to be kept out of government. I don't think it gets any clearer than this.

The Justices were split over the question whether the New Jersey policy constituted support of religion, with the majority concluding these reimbursements were "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that they did not violate the constitution.[6] Both affirming and dissenting Justices, however, were decisive that the Constitution required a sharp separation between government and religion and their strongly worded opinions paved the way to a series of later court decisions that taken together brought about profound changes in legislation, public education, and other policies involving matters of religion.[4] Both Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion and Justice Wiley Rutledge's dissenting opinion defined the First Amendment religious clause in terms of a "wall of separation between church and state".[7][8]

[Altair]

Why is it that your side is encouraged to alter laws and policies of very long-established standing but my side is not permitted to reverse very recent policies of highly questionable legitimacy?

False equivalency.

You have never been told by the law of the land that you can only get married if you choose another man. That, though intimate relations with another man is antithetical to your nature, you are forbidden to marry a woman. And despite the recent change in marriage laws, that's *still* not the case, and never will be.

Until the day you face such laws, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

[Sorcha]

Why is it that your side is encouraged to alter laws and policies of very long-established standing but my side is not permitted to reverse very recent policies of highly questionable legitimacy?

Well, the difference is that your side is trying to impose a specific religiously-based limitation on an entire country that does not share the opinion that this limitation is good, right, or necessary. In fact, the majority of the country disagrees with you, including not a small segment of your own religion. Why should one religion get to decide the legal limitations on marriage for the entire country?

[ehbowen]

You'd do well to review the writings about it, the SCOTUS decisions and the Constitution itself. Article VI, Section 3 kicks religion right out of government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

I'll see your SCOTUS and raise you the Most High.

[ehbowen]

Well, the difference is that your side is trying to impose a specific religiously-based limitation on an entire country that does not share the opinion that this limitation is good, right, or necessary. In fact, the majority of the country disagrees with you, including not a small segment of your own religion. Why should one religion get to decide the legal limitations on marriage for the entire country?

Questions of right and wrong are not subject to the whim of the majority.

[Darkhawk]

I'll see your SCOTUS and raise you the Most High.

If you want to live in a theocracy you are welcome to move and leave those of us who actually love the United States and the rule of law to ourselves.

[Jainarayan]

I'll see your SCOTUS and raise you the Most High.

My response to that, before I deleted it and adopted a position of discretion being the better part of valor, would almost certainly have gotten me banned.

[ehbowen]

My response to that, before I deleted it and adopted a position of discretion being the better part of valor, would almost certainly have gotten me banned.

And I believe that continuing would generate more heat than light. As I said, I am not out to start a fight, simply to state my position. I have done so.

Were we to meet at some social event at a neutral site, I genuinely hope that our interaction would be cordial.

[Jainarayan]

And I believe that continuing would generate more heat than light. As I said, I am not out to start a fight, simply to state my position. I have done so.

The are not opinions, and you know that. Please don't insult my/our intelligence. This is nothing new in your posts.

Were we to meet at some social event at a neutral site, I genuinely hope that our interaction would be cordial.

If you refrained from showing disapproval when I introduced my husband, or refrained from somehow turning a conversation to religion (unless to express genuine interest in mine), I'm sure cordiality and civility would win the day.

[Sorcha]

And I believe that continuing would generate more heat than light. As I said, I am not out to start a fight, simply to state my position. I have done so.

Were we to meet at some social event at a neutral site, I genuinely hope that our interaction would be cordial.

I'm not sure what you imagined the result of stating that you would like your religion to decide how everyone else arranges their families would be. It's not just an opinion. That is passive aggressive. It is a wish for control based on religion.

[Jabberwocky]

Why is it that your side is encouraged to alter laws and policies of very long-established standing but my side is not permitted to reverse very recent policies of highly questionable legitimacy?

Gay marriage isn't recent.  It predates Christanity.  What you actually mean is that you believe the redefinition of marriage by  Constantius II and Constans should be considered sancrosanct and not subject to further revisions.

[MadZealot]

The problem is that groups like these try to influence and impose their beliefs on civil law.

That's the main problem I have with this. Liberty allows all to believe as they will; but keep your sharia to yourself, and don't let it splash up on other people.

[MadZealot]

their god, who was said to have impartially healed and helped sex workers and queer people

I'd like to see the relevant scriptural verses here. Could you please cite them?

[MadZealot]

You will, however, find a case of Jesus healing the "beloved servant" of a Roman centurion, and praising the faith of the man who asked him to.

So, quick quiz:  how many Roman centurions had slave boys they were banging?  What would people of the time have assumed about someone who had a servant who was so dear to him that he'd go to a foreign insurgent preacher who was in active opposition to his occupying presence to ask for help?

Regardless of whether or not that actually was a pederastic relationship, it would have been exceptionally common and accepted that a man of power might have a servant or slave who was his sexual partner.  Jesus either suspected that that was quite likely the case, or Jesus was an utter idiot who was unaware of the social environment involving the Roman occupation, which he was actively and effectively involved with resisting.

I see no reason to believe that Jesus was an idiot.

That assumes the sexual relationship was 100% consensual. If the 'beloved servant' really happened to be a sex slave, there's a master/slave power dynamic that couldn't be ignored, and 'consent' was likely obtained by force.

Jesus, not being an idiot, might've understood that, and was therefore simply ministering to a rape victim.