Re: Pope: GOD made people gay
Posted: Tue May 29, 2018 8:25 am
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/17/the ... public-andStu wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 8:20 amJust to point out that as far as I know (I'm not American), you live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.Philip wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 7:54 amOf course many (Christians and secularists alike) have not wanted such unions at all - as they see them as immoral. I see them as immoral but recognize a democracy with our constitution might well allow for it. Course, there's always the legal battle over the definition of marriage, and over who gets to define it? Yes, a civil union should satisfy gay people, but many of them are militant as to what they are pushing for - as many would feel marginalized by not being able to be "married" in the eyes of the law. And just like many are offended by such unions, many gay people could care less if they offend those who think such unions are immoral. But the question of being offended - no matter which side one is one - should not enter the equation.Ed: My problem with the argument is that those who came out against marriage equality could have pushed for Federal recognition of civil unions that gave everyone the same rights, but they didn't.
Then you need to get over it. Of COURSE many are repulsed by the idea of such unions - and for a variety of reasons - and so they didn't want to recognize it or to subsidize it in any way (benefits, etc.). And most of them didn't want to because of moral reasons and that they think it is harmful for society - they don't want to normalize or encourage what they think is immoral and harmful. For some, the opposition to such is merely a powerful cultural preference that has turned into extreme dislike of the practitioners. So the gay unionists are demanding what many others think is immoral. Ah, but those of us who think such unions are immoral also like living in a democracy with protections that others don't like. And in a democracy, NO one gets everything they want. But we all have the right to lobby for and vote for those who most closely share our personal concerns and ideals - and then out of this come successful majorities that make rules and appoint judges. And if one doesn't like this system - as there will always be winners and losers, and also some groups who game the system better than others - then they can go find a society where everyone thinks as they do. But that place doesn't exist in a large scale society.Ed: Instead they worked their asses off to try maintain the status quo. Rather than seek a fair solution that was open to all they tried to legally define "marriage" - by which I mean the legal, secular union of two people in the eyes of the State - as being between a man and a woman and they did it explicitly to exclude same-sex couples.
Ultimately, Ed, people don't agree upon issues involving morality. And I can also guarantee you that many Christians who see gay unions as immoral, also see many heterosexual unions that they see as being equally immoral. And while many find the influences of immoral heterosexual unions as less threatening to society - they shouldn't. And many Christians DO love those who they don't want pursuing immoral unions of any sort - heterosexual or gay, and etc. (Et Cetera has a long list) - it's just that they don't want certain things they believe harm society.
Ultimately, from Scripture, outside of the theocracy that was once Israel, there is no expectation for ANY other state to be able to successfully police morality. And Israel under The Law, didn't do such a great job of that either - which is because you can't legislate what happens in hearts and minds - as that's a spiritual matter. And THAT is why Christ didn't focus on political solutions, but instead upon ones involving the heart and mind of individuals.