American Morals shifting...A W A Y ...from the...H A T E R S !

[eolesen]

There's rights and there's rites.

For all intents & purposes, all that the "marriage equality" activists have done is successfully created two forms of marriage over the last 15 years.

There's the secular/civil version as licensed and recognized by the state, and then there's still the sacrament that's been around for millenia. Aside from using the same noun, it's ultimately going to wind up being little different from what marriage and civil unions were 20 years ago. It's separate in the eyes of the churches, but equal in the eyes of the state. Law can only be concerned with the latter.

If you want to refer to secular marriage, I suspect most mainstream faiths support "equality" because in the end, how that gets defined doesn't ultimately affect them.

As for the sacramental version, it's still up to that particular faith to decide. Some denominations already have a more inclusive version of their sacrament, others still don't, and some never will. There are still Rabii's who won't marry a Gentile and a Jew, and still Priests who won't marry a Catholic and non-Catholic unless they "pass" pre-cana (which includes committing to raise their children Catholic). To me, that's really no different than the LDS deciding who gets a Temple Admit, the Catholics and Baptists getting to decide who can participate in Communion, or who can or can't be buried in the church cemetery.

You can call it hate, non-equality, or whatever you want, but in the end, faith decides who gets certain rites, not the State.

Here's some light weekend reading for all you "I really hate hate!" outragers...

http://www.amazon.com/End-Discussion-Outrage-Industry-Manipulates/dp/0553447750/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1432643632&sr=8-1&keywords=end+of+discussion

 

[Ms Tree]

No one has ever given a crap about rites. The only question has been about rights. Rights that the religious institutions have fought tooth and nail to deny. That's coming to an end.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

There's rights and there's rites.

For all intents & purposes, all that the "marriage equality" activists have done is successfully created two forms of marriage over the last 15 years.

There's the secular/civil version as licensed and recognized by the state, and then there's still the sacrament that's been around for millenia. Aside from using the same noun, it's ultimately going to wind up being little different from what marriage and civil unions were 20 years ago. It's separate in the eyes of the churches, but equal in the eyes of the state. Law can only be concerned with the latter.

If you want to refer to secular marriage, I suspect most mainstream faiths support "equality" because in the end, how that gets defined doesn't ultimately affect them.

As for the sacramental version, it's still up to that particular faith to decide. Some denominations already have a more inclusive version of their sacrament, others still don't, and some never will. There are still Rabii's who won't marry a Gentile and a Jew, and still Priests who won't marry a Catholic and non-Catholic unless they "pass" pre-cana (which includes committing to raise their children Catholic). To me, that's really no different than the LDS deciding who gets a Temple Admit, the Catholics and Baptists getting to decide who can participate in Communion, or who can or can't be buried in the church cemetery.

You can call it hate, non-equality, or whatever you want, but in the end, faith decides who gets certain rites, not the State.

Here's some light weekend reading for all you "I really hate hate!" outragers...

http://www.amazon.com/End-Discussion-Outrage-Industry-Manipulates/dp/0553447750/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1432643632&sr=8-1&keywords=end+of+discussion

 
Along the lines of 'equality' Eric,.................what about the BULL SHITT that if your not a Jesus freak,..........Y O U (meaning non chrstians) don't get into heaven !
Boy oh boy,....that has to have a lot of (say) Japanese couples, or (american) Indian couples who live, or will live near perfect lives (in all ways) by way of thier ancient traditions(like waaaaaay older than a mere 2+ thousand years)...."scratching thier heads" !!!!!!!!!!! 
 
???????????

 

[eolesen]

No one has ever given a crap about rites.

History has proven otherwise.

 

[eolesen]

Along the lines of 'equality' Eric,.................what about the BULL SHITT that if your not a Jesus freak,..........Y O U (meaning non chrstians) don't get into heaven !
Boy oh boy,....that has to have a lot of (say) Japanese couples, or (american) Indian couples who live, or will live near perfect lives (in all ways) by way of thier ancient traditions(like waaaaaay older than a mere 2+ thousand years)...."scratching thier heads" !!!!!!!!!!!

First of all, if you don't subscribe to the notion of an afterlife, and heaven is just a fairy tale or "Bull shite", then why even worry about who does and doesn't get in?...

Second, you don't have to be a "Jesus freak" to have the afterlife that's promised thru Grace. Instead, what Scriptures say is that those who deny/disown Christ will be denied, but it's rather silent on those who haven't denied Christ. (Luke 12.9 and Matthew 10.33)

In the two examples you gave, if the Japanese or American Indians didn't disown/deny Christ, then there's no cause for them to be denied the same afterlife as those who accepted Christ.

Given your posts, I suspect you'll be on the Do Not Fly list... unless you choose to accept Grace for what it is to those of us who believe.

It's never too late, by the way. Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) converted somewhat late in life. Another that I'm familiar with is Lee Strobel, who started out as a bit of an activist, and had been writing a book to challenge the case for Christ; he wound up converting, and eventually went on to become a pastor at the somewhat famous Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago (the pastor there was a spiritual advisor to the Clintons in the 1990's).

So there's still hope for someone like you. I'll even pray for you if you want.

 

[southwind]

 
Along the lines of 'equality' Eric,.................what about the BULL SHITT that if your not a Jesus freak,..........Y O U (meaning non chrstians) don't get into heaven !
Boy oh boy,....that has to have a lot of (say) Japanese couples, or (american) Indian couples who live, or will live near perfect lives (in all ways) by way of thier ancient traditions(like waaaaaay older than a mere 2+ thousand years)...."scratching thier heads" !!!!!!!!!!! 
 
???????????

 
If you don't believe in Jesus, you don't believe in heaven.....so why are you worried about "Getting Into" a place you don't believe exist?

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

First of all, if you don't subscribe to the notion of an afterlife, and heaven is just a fairy tale or "Bull shite", then why even worry about who does and doesn't get in?...

Second, you don't have to be a "Jesus freak" to have the afterlife that's promised thru Grace. Instead, what Scriptures say is that those who deny/disown Christ will be denied, but it's rather silent on those who haven't denied Christ. (Luke 12.9 and Matthew 10.33)

In the two examples you gave, if the Japanese or American Indians didn't disown/deny Christ, then there's no cause for them to be denied the same afterlife as those who accepted Christ.

Given your posts, I suspect you'll be on the Do Not Fly list... unless you choose to accept Grace for what it is to those of us who believe.

It's never too late, by the way. Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) converted somewhat late in life. Another that I'm familiar with is Lee Strobel, who started out as a bit of an activist, and had been writing a book to challenge the case for Christ; he wound up converting, and eventually went on to become a pastor at the somewhat famous Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago (the pastor there was a spiritual advisor to the Clintons in the 1990's).

So there's still hope for someone like you. I'll even pray for you if you want.

 
Well thanx Eric thanx for the offer,.........but 'I'M GOOD " with knowing that there (most likely) was/is a/my creator.
As far as  'JC' goes, he most definetly was real. But IT ...stops there.
NO Immaculate conception
NO ascending up into the sky ( it defies GRAVITY)
So consequently...NO...trinity !
Looking at most bibles, you'll see that the New Testament occupies about 1/5 of the total pages, BUT...'IT' proclaims that the NT....trumps the other 4/5ths of the book.  In other words telling the JEWS that they are NON Believers.  WTF do they get-off with making such outrageous claims ??
Then we 'fast forward' 1500 years within this NT,.........to branch-off with the reformation, now telling Catholics that 'they're full of shiit'
Sooo,
To recap. First the JEWS are WRONG, then the catholics are WRONG !  Did it EVER occur to them that MAYBE, just MAYBE  they're  F'n....W R O N G  ??????????????
 
Ps,
I was raised in the anglican church, even was a choir boy/kid with a good voice.  It took me 57 years to finally WAKE UP to the greatest FRAUD  EVER perpetrated upon mankind !!

 

[Ms Tree]

History has proven otherwise.

No it has not.  The laws being considered have never dictated what a religious entity can or cannot do.  The laws being considered pertain to civil law only.  Do you have an example of a law that was passed that made a mandate on religion?  I cannot find one.

 

[eolesen]

Hmmm, it's been less than a year since SCOTUS ruled that forcing Hobby Lobby to provide abortifacients violating one's exercise of religions principles. You have the outlawing of polygamy, again focused at curtailing one particular faith.

 

[Ms Tree]

Hmmm, it's been less than a year since SCOTUS ruled that forcing Hobby Lobby to provide abortifacients violating one's exercise of religions principles. You have the outlawing of polygamy, again focused at curtailing one particular faith.

 
I think that is a pretty weak example.  Hobby is a business, not a religion.  In any case, the law was struck down and Hobby was not forced to violate their religious beliefs.  
 
As for polygamy, if you read the case you will understand why they ruled the way they did.  I think the argument is pretty weak my self and I think if a case ever reaches the court again it will be reversed.  In fact, a federal judge rules that the ban on cohabitation in Utah was illegal and a violation of the 1st amendment.  The ruling was narrow in scope but changes like this usually start out slowly.  This case may be the first crack in the laws against polygamy.
 
While I have no evidence to support it, I believe that religious beliefs played a large roll in the criminalization of polygamy.  I know you disagree and you are free to do so.  Religion has a tendency to go after things that they disagree with as is the case with marriage equality.  I see no reason to believe that christianity's bias toward polygamy did not influence the decisions against it as well. 

 

[delldude]

 
I think that is a pretty weak example.  Hobby is a business, not a religion.  In any case, the law was struck down and Hobby was not forced to violate their religious beliefs.  
 
 

 
Then it should be the same for cake bakers.

 

[eolesen]

The law may have been struck down, but that still doesn't change the fact the law was passed in the first place.

You can't litigate morality, as much as some activists might want to try. That works on both sides of the spectrum.

 

[Ms Tree]

No we can't but we can deny bias any legal protection. Christians can hate/pity/disagree with homosexuals all they want but that cannot be given any legal protection.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Hey, I've got NO problem with Polygamy.
If two beauties want to share my  'crib' at the same time, who am I to stop them ?

 

[eolesen]

Seems that legislators in Alabama may have found a way out of being sued over gay marriage...

They're getting out of issuing marriage licenses altogether.

http://whnt.com/2015/06/01/bill-scrapping-marriage-licenses-hits-alabama-house-after-passing-senate/

It passed the Senate by 22-3, and I'd be surprised if it didn't mass the House by a similar margin.