e2493dt

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

180 posts in this topic

Okay, if continuing this tangent will be forgiven, I'm going to put some bullet points I'll have to back up later tomorrow via edit.

-pretty sure some animals have sex for pleasure, too. And I'd bet that plenty of animals aren't even cognizant of the fact that sex is reproducing.

-Are you saying there is actually a mind or entity guiding reality, which agnostics and/or atheists believe in? Because I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any such mind, which is why I'm stuck on your use of"intent" when talking about nonreligious perspectives.

-it didn't all start with one man and one woman, from an evolutionary view.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, to me is God, but for agnostic is Mother Nature, how can it have an intention? Because we exist. If we were created by Mother Earth, is because it wanted us to reproduce. It all started with one man and one woman at some point in time right? We weren't created in a litter right? Of course sounds strange from a Godless point of view.

 

From a godless point of view, nature does not have will, and evolution does not have intention. They are not sentient forces. We exist because the right chain of conditions occurred, nothing more or less. And I don't know enough about human evolution to make a definite statement on this matter, but my very limited understanding is that it did not start with one man and one woman. That is not enough people to create a stable population : we would all be horrifically inbred.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-pretty sure some animals have sex for pleasure, too. And I'd bet that plenty of animals aren't even cognizant of the fact that sex is reproducing

 

 

You are correct, sir. Dolphins enjoy the sexy time with or without the childrens :P

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the reasons I believe in a higher intelligent being. If there was no intelligent life than it would be more logical that nature doesn't have will or intention. Anyways, point conceded, If we continue, it will take us 10 more pages of debate. You guys being agnostic and me being religious, we will never find a middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Do you have a source for that or did you just pull that out of thin air?

You can't talk about hypocrisy without also acknowledging the fact that the gay rights movement rave on and on about tolerance and acceptance when many of them resort to bullying businesses who disagree with them with lawsuits:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-couple-fined-13000-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-at-their

http://www.startribune.com/272282461.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/11/26/2421990/city-rules-hands-on-originals.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/supreme-court-gay-wedding-photography_n_5104699.html

The gay rights movement can sometimes be just as bigoted and closeminded as the people they fighting against when they decide to force their beliefs onto other private individuals. I really don't have any respect for anyone whether they are Christian, gay, Muslims, Jew, man, woman etc who engage in this kind of petty and bullying behavior. There are many gays I know and respect who understand the concept of personal autonomy

That's really the main issue here. We can argue how people of this religion should act all day long, but it's ultimately irrelevant to rights. So a business owner may be a hypocrite, so what? They are not obligated to explain themselves when it comes to their own property. No one is forcing you to patronize their services. But we are seeing butthurt individuals who are forcing others to serve them because they feel entitled to other people's property. That is the epitome of arrogance and selfishness. It's no different than allowing a homeless man to sue a homeowner for refusing to offer him shelter and food when he asked for it. If that's the case, no one would have true ownership to what they have and anyone can make a legal case to take away other people's things that's not their's.

On a side note, we live in a time when our society as a whole is more accepting of other backgrounds. It's unlikely that a business who discriminates against a group will stay in business for long anyways.

Come on do you really need sources for how many christians have premarital sex. Let's be real here. There are very few people in this country who are virgins on their wedding night/day. And if any business refuses service to anyone because of race, religion, sexual orientation that's called discrimination.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got it backwards. If a person doesn't like how a business is run, they can take their money elsewhere. Don't even try to argue that this will lead to a bunch of businesses discriminating against minorities and gays. Many businesses today are affirmative action oriented. Also the gay rights movement is gaining widespread support from businesses all the time including big businesses like Starbucks, Pepsi, Amazon, Yelp, Smallbox, Apple, Microsoft just to name a few.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/marriage-equality-amicus_n_6808260.html

We're living in a society that is becoming more progressive and pluralistic.So the idea of it leading to mass segregation is just ridiculous.

The point is that it's their property, their rules. The day you get to dictate how someone runs their property is the day they can do the same with your cars, house, assets etc.

So where is the line drawn? So if a business can discriminate that just opens up a bunch of doors for others to discriminate. People need to learn how to keep their beliefs from inferring with their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me anyways, a real marriage is only through the Church because it's the only marriage that's not breakable (in Catholisim anyways) It's funny when non religious people get married and say it's "forever" and so "permanent" ha! Well... It is not, a judge can make and break a marriage as many times as you want (just ask JLo).

To me, it is God who sends messages of what's right or wrong. If you don't believe in God, than, Mother Nature has ways of warning you whats right and wrong. Promiscuous people tend to say sex is natural and good for you. I think it is but only with one person. If it is so natural to be promiscuous, than why do we have to use "protection" if is so natural protection from what? Of course, STDs, why are they there? Because you're not supposed to be screwing around with multiple partners. The same for gays, can you reproduce? No! That means you are not supposed to be together. You can't and will never be an authentic family as nature intended to be. I can go on and on with examples, but I guess I made myself clear.

So I don't want to carry and make babies. Not everyone wants babies. So gays cant be together because they can't reproduce. Hello, they can adopt or use a surrogate. Just like infertile couples do. How in the world does mother nature warn us? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Stds? Mother nature? Wtf? You can't be serious. Catholics and christian people divorce all the time. Gods not stopping them from divorcing. There's no such thing a real marriage. What's a real marriage? See this is why people are turning away from religion. You couldn't use the religion argument so you just put in mother nature to get your point across (which I don't see your point) ok.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said in my first post, I wasn't fully aware about what the Indiana law stated. The media reports I'd seen were claiming that it was wide enough to allow restaurants to refuse to serve gay people.

 

Is this an accurate summery of the bill?

 

http://1stamendmentpartnership.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/FAM101-How-RFRA-Works-Infographic-R5.png

 

If so, then I have to say, some of the media coverage is shocking. It seems very clear that the law doesn't say you can refuse to serve someone who's gay and claim it's a religious belief. The law seems very even-handed, actually. All it really says is, they'll give you a chance to defend your religious beliefs in court, and they'll have to take your faith seriously, but they absolutely can reject your appeal if they don't find it convincing. It's not, "Claim religious objections, and you can do whatever the heck you want."

 

Companies are threatening to boycott the state of Indiana over this? Have they read what the law says, because I'm assuming they really don't care, and it's all just for publicity: "Look how pro-gay marriage we are."

 

xxx

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Catholisism, marriage is forever. Meaning you can't get re-married through the Church unless one partner has died.

 

 

Wow this has went from RFRA to basically just sex, but hey it is a waiting till marriage site haha.

 

Really? Was it not Henry the 8th that was granted a rather debatable but still an annulment from the POPE?

 

According to the Bible marriage is until death does the couple part.

 

However, a man such as the pope can become teacher of lies. Such as 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a business doesn't feel like abiding by civil rights laws, then they deserve to be shut down. Dictating how someone runs a business open to the public has nothing to do with personal property such as cars and houses. Yes, the business is yours, but you must abide by the laws.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those who work, for example, in a family bakery that's been going for generations? When they started up, their policy on wedding cakes was in line with the law as it stood at the time. Does the recent change in law mean that they have to change their policy or close down? Would they have to agree to take part in any redefinition of marriage that came in the future (e.g. polygamy)? If so, how could you possibly blame them for opening a business years before there was even such a thing as same-sex marriage? They had no idea they could be forced to take part in such a thing.

xxx

Businesses must adapt to current laws. Businesses that have been open for generations are still required to, for example, abide by handicap laws, and abide by health regulations.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like Michael Corleone in the Godfather 3 "just when I though I was out, they pull me right back in"

Nature elected a man and a woman to conceive for a reason. Ninety percent of the world is heterosexual which means that's the correct form of life or normality. Even if they use surrogates or adopt they will never be a traditional family. End of story. You can argue with me all day and you will not convince me or many others in the world that a family with two fathers or mothers is healthy for the child. It is not.

How does Mother Earth warns you? Can we eat everything we want in excess? No because we'll get fat and develop heart disease, diabetes, etc. Can we be active all day exercising and working without sleeping or sleeping only a couple of hours a day? No we can't because it is very bad for health. The same for sex. Sexually active men will tell you that sex without a condom is extremely much more enjoyable than with a condom. Can we humans sleep around freely (i mean one night stands and multiple partners) and be safe? Even oral sex is recommended doing it with a condom. There's also a link between throat cancer and oral sex. All of these diseases are preventable without using a condom if practiced with one parter. That's the idea. If your partner leaves for whatever reason, does it mean you can't have sex again? Of course not, but make sure the other partner is not infected either. Search on Google, STDs are at their all time high coincidently now that there is more liberalism than ever before. All rules in life are for precautionary measures. People leave religions all the time because like Henry the 8th, they can't stand discipline. They want to change and interpret rules to their advantage.

Regarding pre-martial sex in Christians, I know is the norm, but that doesn't mean they are right. In Baja, it happens to be that at the moment women started to become more liberal, divorce rate has skyrocketed in recent generations. I have never seen so many adulterers in my life as there are today. Materialistic empty and unhappy teens and young adults is what I've been witnessing in both side of the borders. Regarding marriage do understand that when I say "forever" is because you can't get re-married through the Church. Is a one shot thing, so they better know what they are doing. And I'll tell you something, out of the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, I say around 10-15% are Real Catholics meaning they practice the Religion to their full extent. The rest are just Catholic in name. Most of them do not have the slightest idea of what their religion preaches. Heck, they don't even know the Ten Commandments!!

@e2493

The Pope didn't grant an annulment of Henry the 8th's marriage. Quite the contrary, it is this very same reason that Henry created the English Reformation and separated from the Pope and the Catholic Church.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the pizza and bakery business did NOT refuse to give service to homosexuals IN THE STORE!!!! They just didn't want to cater!

This is the reason why this war will never end. What now? You are force to cater a wedding if not you'll get sued!! F**** that!! Like I said before, Gays are becoming what they so hard fought against. Now they are taking believes and freedom out of another culture and that is not equality. You are winning the battle on gay marriage. Be happy with that, but don't force your lifestyle on everyone because that battle is going to get ugly.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not solely a gay issue. This is a religious issue, the law has deemed it okay to deny service based on religion. Muslim? I don't have to serve you, I don't believe in your ways. Christian? Nope, get out of my store. Unwed couple? Can't shop here, your kind isn't allowed.

This is America, I have the freedom from your religion, it should not be imposing on my daily life. While I'm not gay, I'm sure I could be denied service if I were to walk into a store with my girlfriend, on the grounds of unwed couple.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not solely a gay issue. This is a religious issue, the law has deemed it okay to deny service based on religion. Muslim? I don't have to serve you, I don't believe in your ways. Christian? Nope, get out of my store. Unwed couple? Can't shop here, your kind isn't allowed.

This is America, I have the freedom from your religion, it should not be imposing on my daily life. While I'm not gay, I'm sure I could be denied service if I were to walk into a store with my girlfriend, on the grounds of unwed couple.

That's ok, go and find another store. If I was refused a service because I'm Catholic say in a Jewish business, would I be offended? No, if they say it politely, I'm find with it. I'll just find another store. As simple as that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ok, go and find another store. If I was refused a service because I'm Catholic say in a Jewish business, would I be offended? No, if they say it politely, I'm find with it. I'll just find another store. As simple as that.

If it was as simple as that, there would never have been a Civil Rights movement.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Ninety percent of the world is heterosexual which means that's the correct form of life or normality. 

 

No, it does not, any more than being right-handed is 'correct' because that's the way 90% of the population is. It may be 'normal,' but that is a statement that doesn't really hold a lot of meaning in terms of what is right or best.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was as simple as that, there would never have been a Civil Rights movement.

It was as simple as that, until that couple decided to sue the bakery and now the pizza shop is being shot down because they refused to cater not sell you a product in store, cater.

If I owned a bakery business, I wouldn't mind if a gay gang walks in my store and buy all the tubular shape pastries. Good for them. That's their life, but if they ask me to cater their wedding....absolutely not. It's unfair that they force me to violate my beliefs when they can freely go to the next store.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it does not, any more than being right-handed is 'correct' because that's the way 90% of the population is. It may be 'normal,' but that is a statement that doesn't really hold a lot of meaning in terms of what is right or best.

Let me ask you this, would you have sex with a relative? Or sex with a minor?

I'm inclined you'll say no, but why?

Where on earth does it say you can't incest or do a minor? A law? Created by humans? But they can be changed right? What makes you believe incest is wrong? Animals do it all the time. So give me a good reason why you wouldn't do it. Or would you?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this, would you have sex with a relative? Or sex with a minor?

I'm inclined you'll say no, but why?

Where on earth does it say you can't incest or do a minor? A law? Created by humans? But they can be changed right? What makes you believe incest is wrong? Animals do it all the time. So give me a good reason why you wouldn't do it. Or would you?

 

Are we really at the point in this debate where we're comparing consensual sex between same-gender adults to raping children? Really? I think it's pretty clear why one of those things is not at all like the other.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we really at the point in this debate where we're comparing consensual sex between same-gender adults to raping children? Really? I think it's pretty clear why one of those things is not at all like the other.

Did I say children? Or rape? I said a minor and I mean consensual sex. Both parties agree to do it, say a 20 year old with a 16 year old. Why is that wrong? Please explain. You also didn't answer the insest question. Would you? Why or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this, would you have sex with a relative? Or sex with a minor?

I'm inclined you'll say no, but why?

Where on earth does it say you can't incest or do a minor? A law? Created by humans? But they can be changed right? What makes you believe incest is wrong? Animals do it all the time. So give me a good reason why you wouldn't do it. Or would you?

 

Sex with relatives threatens the family structure which is essential for societal health. Furthermore, by and large, family members don't have a desire to get married to each other. 

 

Minor's are too young to know what they are getting themselves into.

 

The notion that those born gay should be celibate the remainder of their life is absolute absurdity. For these people to have love in their life they must pursue who they are attracted to just as straight people do.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say children? Or rape? I said a minor and I mean consensual sex. Both parties agree to do it, say a 20 year old with a 16 year old. Why is that wrong? Please explain. You also didn't answer the insest question. Would you? Why or why not?

 

Depending on maturity levels, I don't necessarily think it is wrong for a 20 year old and a 16 year old to be together (my general attitude is, if they could have gone to high school together then it should be legal, though the difference between a 14 year old and an 18 year old is usually enough so I don't know if I think it is right, just like I think an 18 year old and a 30 year old should be legal, though I do not often think it is right). However, in order to protect kids who are too young and immature to be able to consent to sex, there must be a cut-off age for consent, and it will inherently be arbitrary: there is just no way around that. But I believe it is better to lean on the side of protecting kids than it is to risk giving an adult the freedom to sexually exploit someone who is mentally still a child.

 

Do I want to f*ck my brother? No, the idea is completely repulsive to me. Whether that is something that has been ingrained in me through culture, or something biologically selected for due to the genetic problems incest tends to lead to, I don't know, and I don't really care. Do I care if some siblings or cousins want to f*ck? No, it's their lives. But the prohibition on incestuous marriages is not comparable to the prohibition on same-sex marriages. Keeping marriage opposite-sex only prevents everyone in the US from marrying an entire *class* of people (I cannot marry 51% of all people in the US). Prohibiting marriage between first-degree relatives (cousin marriage is legal in about half the US, and the states in which it is not technically legal are obligated to recognize an out-of-state cousin marriage) means that you are banned from marrying a very small number of specific people. No one is *only* capable of being attracted to a first-degree relative.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sex with relatives threatens the family structure which is essential for societal health. Furthermore, by and large, family members don't have a desire to get married to each other.

Minor's are too young to know what they are getting themselves into.

The notion that those born gay should be celibate the remainder of their life is absolute absurdity. For these people to have love in their life they must pursue who they are attracted to just as straight people do.

You said it yourself. It threatens the family structure (a mother and a father) which is essential for societal health right? That's my point, so why are gays exempted from this structure and not incest?

Who draws the line as what is too young? 18 year olds can have sex and vote but not drink? If they are adults how come they can't drink? Is there a big difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old?

The Church has to disagree with homosexuality because in a union of flesh as one, they can't conceive a human being (seribus peribus) That doesn't mean they aren't welcome to Church. My sister's bow's Godfather is gay and put the bow in my sister and brother in law's shoulders at a Catholic altar. No problems whatsoever. Only God can judge him, not us. He is always welcomed to our home.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said it yourself. It threatens the family structure (a mother and a father) which is essential for societal health right? That's my point, so why are gays exempted from this structure and not incest?

 

I don't see how a homosexual pursuing another homosexual threatens family structure. The vast majority of humans are not homosexual.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now