Are Democrats attacking Christians?

[AlAyeti]

Why now are Democrats insisting that nominee John Roberts' Catholic beliefs be fair game as a means to decide his qualificationns as a Supreme Court Justice?

Is this another example of anti-Christian and intolerant views held by the Democrats towards Christians?

Is it proper and decent to ask about a persons religious beliefs to decide their worth in the justice system?

For example I have on many occasions made the assertion that Democrats are hostile to Christians that speak out and feel this is a good example to hold my beliefs as valid.

(One of the sitting Supreme court judges was involved in the ACLU. A one-sided view of American life for sure, but was confirmed.)

So why now the litmus test of Roberts' Catholic faith being an issue for his nomination?

Is it anti-Christian and does it imply that Christians cannot be involved in the American process of justice?

[youngborean]

Gay bashing is and should continue to be illegal.

Well that all depends on what bashing is. Your second point is well taken. If someone is advocating violence then it should be illegal. But I am sure there are some people on the other side of the issue that believe that calling homosexual practice a sin is gay bashing. I like your first point and agree with it. I am saying the same thing. There are many ways to develop morality. Religion is only one of them. That is also why the religious shouldn't be singled out when the act immoral.

[ST88]

I never said a law was based on religious principles. They are based on ethics. And ethics are derived from the collective morality of the public. Individual Morality uses all sorts of means to create itself. One way is religion. Another way could be philosophy. It doesn't change the fact that ethics are derived from ideology. Just because someone doesn't use the divine to define their morality does not automatically make it objective and not an ideological. How is day to day practice of the populous not based on an ideal? If it wasn't then there would be no need for laws.

I think we're talking about two different things here. The ideology of America (to use that example) is pretty much set out in the Constitution, a legal document. And actual laws have to conform to that standard. But laws aren't created out of the Constitution the same way that Law is created out of the OT. Laws are created based on the perceived societal need of the lawmakers -- then are tested against the Constitution. The Constitution may imply certain laws, but these implied laws are not actual rules until they are spelled out. What this means is that ideology does not produce law. Societal need produces law on the pragmatic level. In the U.S., we don't specify which actions are allowable, we specify which actions are not allowable. I guess you could call this an ideology of licentiousness, whatever that may mean. But in the Constitution is an acknowledgement that there are certain human traits which can't be overridden with law because they are desirable traits. To me, this is kind of an anti-ideology, because it doesn't specify where the society is supposed to be going, only that it should include the people's happiness along the way.

So the choice is accept or quit a job. Sure. Just like the choice for Same Sex couples was have a Civil union and still have every single right of a married couple (in canada). So because I have to make a choice based on semantics does that mean I am being treated like a second class citizen too.

Well, I guess it does. If the issue is semantics, then what's the problem? Again, by your own admission, these marriages are not consecrated by God, only by the state. I could imagine that the same-sex couple might disagree with you about that -- in my opinion they would be wrong -- but in any case it is a matter of opinion or religious law, not civic law. What part of law makes it unacceptable to recognize that same-sex couples have legal rights an privileges indistinguishable from multi-sex couples? Is it that one is the automatic beneficiary in the event of the other's death or is it that they love each other and have sex with one another?

Oh, come on now. This slippery slope argument is a red herring.

Hardly, we are talking about the ideals of laws. You are arguing that only logic goes into laws. If that is the case we could leave out dogs, but certainly polgymists or people that want to marry children under 13 should not be treated as second class citizens as well. If marriage is an inalienable right of every citizen.

Marriage is the exclusive privilege of those who have the ability to consent to such a relationship. Underage persons do not have the ability to consent as a matter of law, nor do animals.

To make my views on this absolutely clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with polygamy. But the law indicates that there are only two parties in a marriage, and this can be separate from given arguments against banning same-sex marriage, such as gender discrimination. There is nothing to keep the definition of marriage from including multiple partners except societal attitudes, but permitting same-sex marriage doesn't lead to that.

But extreme ideologies exist on all sides of laws and contribute to them. It is unfair and untrue to say that only religious people are idealogical in their desired influcene of the political process.

Which is why the process must be ruled by pragmatism. I never said the far left wasn't ideological, just that wanting to legalize same-sex marriage wasn't.

But precedence is important, voices in the past were hopefully trying to tell us not to repeat past mistakes.

And, of course, there are many precedents that were mistakes.

[AlAyeti]

SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS NOT BEING BANNED!

It is being forced on an unwilling populace by a tiny minority of people who identify themselves through their sex acts.

The word "Marriage" is being subverted for an agenda and its desire to force a REDEFINITION of marriage.

It is by force of judicial activism that the homosexual agenda is forcing itself on society after society after society.

Marriage is and ALWAYS has been ONE THING! Whether multiple or singular, it has always meant a man and a woman.

The intolerant are on the side to REDEFINE and FORCE marriage to change.

Democrats have more factions DEMANDING this redefinition than the Republicans.

If they cannot get it by democracy, they will pound on the doors of the courthouse demanding to be normalized like no other time in history.

Except maybe Sodom and Gomorrah.

[MagusYanam]

Main Entry:mar.riage
Pronunciation:*marij, -rej also *mer-
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Middle English mariage, from Middle French, from marier to marry + -age - more at MARRY

1 a : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family - see MONOGAMY, POLYGAMY
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected : WEDDING; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities - compare BEENA MARRIAGE, COEMPTIO, CONFARREATION, LEVIRATE
3 : an intimate or close union
4 : MARITAGE
5 : the combination of a king and queen of the same suit (as in pinochle) - see ROYAL MARRIAGE

The term 'marriage' has never meant only one thing. It has historically meant anything from the union of one man and one woman to one man with several women (or several men with one woman), though today the recognised individual marriage is between only one man and only one woman. It can mean the rite itself or the state thereof.

Societally, it can mean the union of two royal houses by the wedding of two of their scions or the joint rulership of two realms by such a union (such as the Union of Kalmar). So two countries can be 'married'.

A homosexual state of marriage, should that term be appropriate, would fit Merriam-Webster's definition 3, though not definition 1. Definition 1c. absolutely requires there to be at least one member of each gender. However, marriage is no longer defined legally by the willingness of the couple to engage in raising a family, since there are long-wed childless couples who we deem as a society to be 'married'.

In that case, what becomes the defining motivation for marriage, if not raising a family? Love, perhaps? In that case, if there are homosexual couples who are committed to a monogamous, stable, loving relationship, though the name 'marriage' may or may not be applicable to such a state, all things being equal they should still be entitled to the same legal rights as a childless heterosexual couple.

Also, Biblically speaking, among the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, 'redefinition of marriage' was not one of them. Most grievous to a Hebrew audience would have been the lack of hospitality the Sodomites showed to the two angels who visited Lot, demanding they be brought out from Lot's house. Lot, in his desperation to preserve etiquette, offered them his daughters instead, at which point they began abusing him. The maltreatment of foreigners (Lot) is portrayed as one of their cardinal sins.

They said, 'this fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them'.

[McCulloch]

SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS NOT BEING BANNED!
It is being forced on an unwilling populace by a tiny minority of people who identify themselves through their sex acts.
The word "Marriage" is being subverted for an agenda and its desire to force a REDEFINITION of marriage.
It is by force of judicial activism that the homosexual agenda is forcing itself on society after society after society.
Marriage is and ALWAYS has been ONE THING! Whether multiple or singular, it has always meant a man and a woman.
The intolerant are on the side to REDEFINE and FORCE marriage to change.
Democrats have more factions DEMANDING this redefinition than the Republicans.
If they cannot get it by democracy, they will pound on the doors of the courthouse demanding to be normalized like no other time in history.
Except maybe Sodom and Gomorrah.

No one is forcing a different version of marriage on those who will continue to marry in the time honoured traditional way. The intolerance is on the side of those who wish that their definition is the only definition and would like to forbid others that happiness.

[AlAyeti]

Magus and McCulloch,

Your last posts do not serve either of you well.

I have been thrashed by you both analytically several times and have learned many good things from you both, but not this time.

There is far more than "just" marriage on the line with the homosexual agenda.

The inhospitable nature of pushing a sexual agenda on unwilling participants in every school in America bares witness that the homosexuals are indeed the same as they were inn Sodom. I don't know what Gomorrah was all about but I know that Abraham was disgusted in King Bera.

"You keep all of the treasures," said King Bera to Abraham, "but give me the persons. . ." (paraphrarse mine).

It just makes your skin crawl.

All of the men in Sodom demanded the Angels. And the sexual lascivious licentious picture painted in Ezekial of the "sisters" is so extremely accurate to today it is awesome. The one defining thing about the homosexual lifestyle is sexual promiscuity. And marriage is not going to put a damper on that "parade." Who's kidding who? Any amount of time spent around a homosexual community, proves the nature of their "morality." Monogamy does not mean one lover a night. In any community.

No one is forcing a different version of marriage?

That is just not a accurate statement. And neither is trying to bend the dictionary to accept same-sex marriage. Disingenuous is to light a word to attach to the attempt.

Historically and politically, what they cannot force on the free democratic populace, they will command by judicial and elitist power. Their people have been put into place to see this to fruition.

Watch.

[McCulloch]

The one defining thing about the homosexual lifestyle is sexual promiscuity. And marriage is not going to put a damper on that "parade." Who's kidding who? Any amount of time spent around a homosexual community, proves the nature of their "morality." Monogamy does not mean one lover a night. In any community.

And homosexuals are the only promiscuous people? Heterosexuals are the only monogamous ones? Untrue. My neighbours have been faithful to each other for as long as we have known them (over 10 years), they don't go to the "dike parade" and are outstanding responsible respectful citizens of our community.

Historically and politically, what they cannot force on the free democratic populace, they will command by judicial and elitist power. Their people have been put into place to see this to fruition.
Watch.

A free democratic society does not mean you must have a tyranny of the majority. Free democratic societies also include the protection of minority rights (including fundamentalist religionists and gays).

[AlAyeti]

McCulloch,

Can churches in Canada preach that homosexuality IS a sin and wrong? Can Christian churches in Canada read Romans as it is written in the New Testament portion of their Bibles and teach their members that homosexuality is accurately portrayed as wrong behavior for a Christian?

Please ask your neighbors if they would allow Christians to preach and teach what the Bible says.

And, how does Christianity not fit hate crimes laws in Canada since the Bible is very clear about same-sex sex, and what condition the practioner is in?

Just for the record, I hope you know that the Bible condemns everyone as sinners.

It does really appear to me that Christians are targeted by Democrats in this country.

Have you read the book "The Criminalization of Christianity?"

[Cathar1950]

The Bible does not condemns everyone as sinners. There are ones and places in the Bible but the bible doesn't.
Should you be told you a sinner and wrong by some group? Say maybe Moslems, Catholics or Mormons. What if a pagan went around you children and said all kinds of stupid stuff. Your the only one who seems to have an agenda. I don't see any more sexual promiscuity among gays then I do among heteros. maybe less. You should hang out with a better class of Gays. I don't think a dyke or gay parade is worse then a white nazi march. There maybe more colorful.
AlAyeti wrote:

Historically and politically, what they cannot force on the free democratic populace, they will command by judicial and elitist power. Their people have been put into place to see this to fruition.

Now who is shoving what, down whos, throat?

[McCulloch]

Can churches in Canada preach that homosexuality IS a sin and wrong?

Yes. Just as mosques in Canada can preach that eating bacon is wrong. But they have to be tolerant of those who disagree.

Can Christian churches in Canada read Romans as it is written in the New Testament portion of their Bibles and teach their members that homosexuality is accurately portrayed as wrong behavior for a Christian?

Yes, they can and they do. And as long as they limit their proscription to those in their own group, they can continue.

Please ask your neighbors if they would allow Christians to preach and teach what the Bible says.

Could you be more specific? Do you want me to ask them if adulterers should be stoned?

And, how does Christianity not fit hate crimes laws in Canada since the Bible is very clear about same-sex sex, and what condition the practioner is in?

This is a tricky legal issue. A balance must be maintained. Religious orgainizations have to be allowed to teach that certain activities which are legal may be immoral within the teachings of their dogma. But they also have to accept the fact that in a democratic society, the rights of those who disagree with the moral teachings of those religious organizations must be tolerated. Religious organizations must not teach that those rights should be disregarded.