Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Mudflap]

Hezekiah 12:22

Well, if we're going to the Old Testament, then I have to ask you something: Can I sell you my daughter to settle up my debt?

 

[Jughead]

And I would hope you would never be asked to.

Now...let's go on to civil laws....do you think that civil laws should be at the beck and call of religious beliefs?

Of course not. However we need to use common sense and good judgment. For instance, if I were employed as an IRS official, and my faith would prevent me from processing same sex joint tax returns, I should be excused from that part of the job. The IRS would need to provide special accommodation so the IRS official would not lose his job because of his faith.

I must have missed the part of the bible that said christians should judge, hate, and deny people that live their lives a way christians don't agree with. Yup, must have skipped right over that while busy reading how Jesus taught his followers to love they neighbor, hate the sin and not the sinner, and to help people whenever possible.

If your religion says being gay is wrong, fine, then you personally should not be gay. But saying that your religion forbids you from interacting with people just because they don't believe the same thing you do is an affront to christianity.

That's just silly. I interact with everyone and don't hate anyone, never have. What I said in my post was that if the nature of my job would require me to engage in an activity that would be in conflict with my faith, then depending on the circumstance, I should be excused from that activity.

For instance, if I were employed as a justice of the peace, my job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. However, if my faith would not allow me to perform the ceremony for a gay couple, one of my colleagues would need to replace me. This doesn't mean that I can't interact with the gay couple, I would simply not be able to perform the wedding ceremony as it would be in conflict with my faith. I surely would not renounce my faith for the sake of my job. The first amendment still applies.

 

[SwimExpert]

Of course not. However we need to use common sense and good judgment. For instance, if I were employed as an IRS official, and my faith would prevent me from processing same sex joint tax returns, I should be excused from that part of the job. The IRS would need to provide special accommodation so the IRS official would not lose his job because of his faith.

I must have missed the part of the bible that said christians should judge, hate, and deny people that live their lives a way christians don't agree with. Yup, must have skipped right over that while busy reading how Jesus taught his followers to love they neighbor, hate the sin and not the sinner, and to help people whenever possible.

If your religion says being gay is wrong, fine, then you personally should not be gay. But saying that your religion forbids you from interacting with people just because they don't believe the same thing you do is an affront to christianity.

That's just silly. I interact with everyone and don't hate anyone, never have. What I said in my post was that if the nature of my job would require me to engage in an activity that would be in conflict with my faith, then depending on the circumstance, I should be excused from that activity.

For instance, if I were employed as a justice of the peace, my job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. However, if my faith would not allow me to perform the ceremony for a gay couple, one of my colleagues would need to replace me. This doesn't mean that I can't interact with the gay couple, I would simply not be able to perform the wedding ceremony as it would be in conflict with my faith. I surely would not renounce my faith for the sake of my job. The first amendment still applies.

No, if you don't want to do the requirements for your job, then you should get a new job.

 

[Mudflap]

Of course not. However we need to use common sense and good judgment. For instance, if I were employed as an IRS official, and my faith would prevent me from processing same sex joint tax returns, I should be excused from that part of the job. The IRS would need to provide special accommodation so the IRS official would not lose his job because of his faith.

I must have missed the part of the bible that said christians should judge, hate, and deny people that live their lives a way christians don't agree with. Yup, must have skipped right over that while busy reading how Jesus taught his followers to love they neighbor, hate the sin and not the sinner, and to help people whenever possible.

If your religion says being gay is wrong, fine, then you personally should not be gay. But saying that your religion forbids you from interacting with people just because they don't believe the same thing you do is an affront to christianity.

That's just silly. I interact with everyone and don't hate anyone, never have. What I said in my post was that if the nature of my job would require me to engage in an activity that would be in conflict with my faith, then depending on the circumstance, I should be excused from that activity.

For instance, if I were employed as a justice of the peace, my job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. However, if my faith would not allow me to perform the ceremony for a gay couple, one of my colleagues would need to replace me. This doesn't mean that I can't interact with the gay couple, I would simply not be able to perform the wedding ceremony as it would be in conflict with my faith. I surely would not renounce my faith for the sake of my job. The first amendment still applies.

Declining to perform a wedding ceremony happens all the time... divorced couples wanting to remarry comes to mind. I've never heard of clergy (or whatever term should be used) being forced to marry a divorced couple, and don't think clergy should be forced to marry a gay couple. There is already clergy out there willing to do so.

 

[WorldWatcher]

For instance, if I were employed as a justice of the peace, my job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. However, if my faith would not allow me to perform the ceremony for a gay couple, one of my colleagues would need to replace me. This doesn't mean that I can't interact with the gay couple, I would simply not be able to perform the wedding ceremony as it would be in conflict with my faith. I surely would not renounce my faith for the sake of my job. The first amendment still applies.

Where I grew, up the Justice of the Peace was an elected official and there was only one.

The first amendment does not protect you from performing an essential function of your job if there is no reasonable accommodation and it places an undue hardship on the employer. Since most localities have only one JOP, that can be viewed as an employer hardship. For example you are Jewish and are hired as a cook in a Diner, you tell the manager that you refuse the cook bacon and will not prepare the Pulled Pork BBQ sandwiches. They are not required to accommodate your refusal to perform the functions of the job.

You are better off using the IRS Tax Auditor example as the IRS has multiple agents assigned to each regional office.


>>>>

 

[Jughead]

For instance, if I were employed as a justice of the peace, my job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. However, if my faith would not allow me to perform the ceremony for a gay couple, one of my colleagues would need to replace me. This doesn't mean that I can't interact with the gay couple, I would simply not be able to perform the wedding ceremony as it would be in conflict with my faith. I surely would not renounce my faith for the sake of my job. The first amendment still applies.

Where I grew, up the Justice of the Peace was an elected official and there was only one.

The first amendment does not protect you from performing an essential function of your job if there is no reasonable accommodation and it places an undue hardship on the employer. Since most localities have only one JOP, that can be viewed as an employer hardship. For example you are Jewish and are hired as a cook in a Diner, you tell the manager that you refuse the cook bacon and will not prepare the Pulled Pork BBQ sandwiches. They are not required to accommodate your refusal to perform the functions of the job.

You are better off using the IRS Tax Auditor example as the IRS has multiple agents assigned to each regional office.


>>>>

I guess it depends on the city. I recall in Dallas for instance we had about a dozen or so Justice of the Peace judges.

 

[SwimExpert]

Actually, as far as I know, there is no state where a judge or justice of the peace is required to perform any marriage ceremony at all. They are authorized to do so. But most do not, and many who do occasionally do not do so on a regular basis (usually for family or something like that).

 

[Jughead]

I must have missed the part of the bible that said christians should judge, hate, and deny people that live their lives a way christians don't agree with. Yup, must have skipped right over that while busy reading how Jesus taught his followers to love they neighbor, hate the sin and not the sinner, and to help people whenever possible.

If your religion says being gay is wrong, fine, then you personally should not be gay. But saying that your religion forbids you from interacting with people just because they don't believe the same thing you do is an affront to christianity.

That's just silly. I interact with everyone and don't hate anyone, never have. What I said in my post was that if the nature of my job would require me to engage in an activity that would be in conflict with my faith, then depending on the circumstance, I should be excused from that activity.

For instance, if I were employed as a justice of the peace, my job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. However, if my faith would not allow me to perform the ceremony for a gay couple, one of my colleagues would need to replace me. This doesn't mean that I can't interact with the gay couple, I would simply not be able to perform the wedding ceremony as it would be in conflict with my faith. I surely would not renounce my faith for the sake of my job. The first amendment still applies.

No, if you don't want to do the requirements for your job, then you should get a new job.

That's not very practical in some circumstances. I agree that if you're looking for a new job, then of course you should not accept the job if you cannot perform the required duties.

However, if say I'm an IRS tax official who's been on the job for 35 years. For 35 years, I have been able to do my job with no issues. However now with the legalization of gay marriage comes the possibility that I may have to process joint tax returns from gay couples. This would clearly be in conflict with my faith. It would be mean spirited for my employer to fire me after 35 years because I decline to perform new duties that are in conflict with my faith. The approach here would be to have another colleague handle that part of the job. This in my opinion would be a reasonable accommodation given the circumstances.

 

[SwimExpert]

That's not very practical in some circumstances. I agree that if you're looking for a new job, then of course you should not accept the job if you cannot perform the required duties.

Too bad, suck it up.

However, if say I'm an IRS tax official who's been on the job for 35 years. For 35 years, I have been able to do my job with no issues. However now with the legalization of gay marriage comes the possibility that I may have to process joint tax returns from gay couples. This would clearly be in conflict with my faith. It would be mean spirited for my employer to fire me after 35 years because I decline to perform new duties that are in conflict with my faith.

That is how any job works. If you aren't willing to do what your job requires of you, either quit and find a new job, or stay and get fired. It's pretty simple. There are plenty of people whose jobs require them to work on religious holidays. Either do it, find a new job, or get fired for refusing to do it.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Of course not. However we need to use common sense and good judgment. For instance, if I were employed as an IRS official, and my faith would prevent me from processing same sex joint tax returns, I should be excused from that part of the job. The IRS would need to provide special accommodation so the IRS official would not lose his job because of his faith.

I must have missed the part of the bible that said christians should judge, hate, and deny people that live their lives a way christians don't agree with. Yup, must have skipped right over that while busy reading how Jesus taught his followers to love they neighbor, hate the sin and not the sinner, and to help people whenever possible.

If your religion says being gay is wrong, fine, then you personally should not be gay. But saying that your religion forbids you from interacting with people just because they don't believe the same thing you do is an affront to christianity.

That's just silly. I interact with everyone and don't hate anyone, never have. What I said in my post was that if the nature of my job would require me to engage in an activity that would be in conflict with my faith, then depending on the circumstance, I should be excused from that activity.

For instance, if I were employed as a justice of the peace, my job would require me to perform wedding ceremonies. However, if my faith would not allow me to perform the ceremony for a gay couple, one of my colleagues would need to replace me. This doesn't mean that I can't interact with the gay couple, I would simply not be able to perform the wedding ceremony as it would be in conflict with my faith. I surely would not renounce my faith for the sake of my job. The first amendment still applies.

Whether your religion believes that or not is irrelevant. Muslims don't believe in eating pork, but we're not about ban bacon just because of that. Religion is supposed to be a personal thing. If your religion says that gay marriage is wrong, then don't marry some that's the same sex as you. But don't try to push your religious beliefs on people through your job.

Besides, I see a whole lot of christians being in conflict with their faith almost every day. Why cherry pick this one? How many christians do you see eating pork and shellfish?

Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, in the bible does it say that you cannot conduct business with someone who doesn't believe the same thing you do.

 

[Kondor3]

Separate but equal. Look it up.

Having a black skin color is not detrimental to society.

Engaging in perverse and unnatural sexual practices is oftentimes deemed detrimental to society.

Look it up.

Based on what?

That's a very good question.

There is a considerable body of commentary - lay and judicial - spanning several centuries - regarding the detrimental effects and degenerate nature of homosexuality.

You're welcome to cherry-pick some of the more reasonable objections and cautions, in order to gauge value.

Why do people believe that such perverse and unnatural sexual practices are detrimental to society?

 

[SwimExpert]

Having a black skin color is not detrimental to society.

Engaging in perverse and unnatural sexual practices is oftentimes deemed detrimental to society.

Look it up.

Based on what?

That's a very good question.

There is a considerable body of commentary - lay and judicial - spanning several centuries - regarding the detrimental effects and degenerate nature of homosexuality.

You're welcome to cherry-pick some of the more reasonable objections and cautions, in order to gauge value.

Why do people believe that such perverse and unnatural sexual practices are detrimental to society?

That's not an answer. Clearly, you have no answer.

 

[Unkotare]

Religion is supposed to be a personal thing. .

No it's not.

 

[Jughead]

Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, in the bible does it say that you cannot conduct business with someone who doesn't believe the same thing you do.

I agree, and I do conduct business all the time with folks who don't share my faith, and yes gay folks as well. I have no issues with that. What I do have a problem with is being required to participate in an activity that would be in conflict with my faith. For instance if a neighbor who was gay was to invite me to his wedding, I would politely decline the invitation.

 

[52ndStreet]

Marriage is for the Procreation of life. How does Sodomy and homosexuality claim to want to be included into an institution that is for the promotion of life and family?.

What we have here is an attempt by the homosexual agenda people to corrupt and subvert normal
family values, and to brainwash an entire nation into accepting their perverted lifstyle and ideology.
The homosexuals must be stoped.
Homosexuality must be made to be a criminal offence.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marriage is for the Procreation of life. How does Sodomy and homosexuality claim to want to be included into an institution that is for the promotion of life and family?.

What we have here is an attempt by the homosexual agenda people to corrupt and subvert normal
family values, and to brainwash an entire nation into accepting their perverted lifstyle and ideology.
The homosexuals must be stoped.
Homosexuality must be made to be a criminal offence.

Except for the fact there are laws on the books that require a couple to be infertile before being able to marry.


>>>>

 

[Kondor3]

Based on what?

That's a very good question.

There is a considerable body of commentary - lay and judicial - spanning several centuries - regarding the detrimental effects and degenerate nature of homosexuality.

You're welcome to cherry-pick some of the more reasonable objections and cautions, in order to gauge value.

Why do people believe that such perverse and unnatural sexual practices are detrimental to society?

That's not an answer. Clearly, you have no answer.

Oh, I can conjure-up a half-dozen or more fairly solid answers easily enough.

It's just that I've found it most helpful when the opposing faction does their due diligence and does the conjuring

Which is what I was trying to accomplish here.

Asking, for all intents and purposes: "Why do you think you are opposed so strenuously? Not the easy answers. The weightier, more substantive ones."

But you're welcome to think whatever you like, about my ability to do that conjuring.

 

[52ndStreet]

Marriage is for the Procreation of life. How does Sodomy and homosexuality claim to want to be included into an institution that is for the promotion of life and family?.

What we have here is an attempt by the homosexual agenda people to corrupt and subvert normal
family values, and to brainwash an entire nation into accepting their perverted lifstyle and ideology.
The homosexuals must be stoped.
Homosexuality must be made to be a criminal offence.

As I said, the institution of marriage is ment for procreation, life, one man one woman=one
or two children.Not for the promotion of Sodomy, or any form of homosexuality,or beastiality,
which is a direct offshot of homosexuality.
Homosexuality must be criminalized now!., as it has been in Uganda and many other God fearing nations. It is a sin in the eyes of God, and abomonation.

 

[Silhouette]

That's not an answer. Clearly, you have no answer.

I do have an answer however. I repeat:

Here you are:

From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM CDC ? Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men ? Gender ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS

AND

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

AND

Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abuse dabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

The same years the sudden increase in HIV in boys ages 13-24 are the same years gay is getting mainstreamed in society through the vehicle of marriage.

Also see this article:

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001

It is a peer-reviewed article with about 350 citations in its bibliography. It documents the nature of social conditioning upon sexual choices and thereby sexual conditioning [orientation] post natally. It concludes that humans can be expected to be subjected to the same laws and conclusions. Lengthy article but well worth the read for those who are say, arguing innate vs behavioral in, say, a courtroom or Supreme Courtroom...

And those 350 citations are peer reviewed also. So that scientific analysis that supports sexual orientation as influenced by society is backed more probably by 1,000s of researchers. Go ahead, give the articles a read. And after you do, you can ponder how "monkey see, monkey do" has affected young boys in a very negative way in just the years gay marriage is attempting to normalize sodomy in the eyes of future generations.

 

[SwimExpert]

Having a black skin color is not detrimental to society.

Engaging in perverse and unnatural sexual practices is oftentimes deemed detrimental to society.

Having black skin color once was, and even now sometimes is, deemed detrimental to society. But just like in the case of homosexuality, it is false.