The End of the Christian Right

[Uncensored2008]

Clergy will not be forced to perform marriages by the government, ever, without changing the 1st Amendment.

Try again, lefty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20vermont.html

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sheesh, Uncensored. An inn is not a clergyman. Take the nonsense elsewhere if you can make a point.

It's a private organization.

You thugs can and are forcing private concerns to bow to your agenda. There are no first amendment rights, only the will of your shameful party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the inn is in the "public venue", that it is fair game for the libs and or the cons, and their silliness.

I hope the judge says "go to heck, libs".

Now, you note it is a private business, but it is bound by certain laws. Tis what tis.

 

[The Gadfly]

Here is where Nosmoking goes off the road. Even if same sex marriage were legal today in all 50 states, the rift would still be there, and the nation would be driven further apart than ever. Same sex couples wouldn't get what they really want which is acceptance of normal behaviorl The fracture would remain, and the nation would be more unstable than ever. It certainly wouldn't mean that we aren't disintegrating, just more evidence that we are and it can't be stopped.

Same sex marriage would become like abortion. We've had abortion for more than 40 years, two generations. There's no indication that we are finding points of compromise and growing closer and stronger as a country.

That's because abortion was forced upon a majority that did not want it, via crooked judges who thought it was AOK to legislate from the bench.

And you're right. the same thing will happen with same sex marriage when it's forced upon a majority that doesn't want it.

Show me where Roe v. Wade has forced ANYONE who did not want an abortion to have one. Show me, where laws permitting homosexual marriages have forced even ONE person to involuntarily enter into one. For that matter, show me where any law permitting having sex in something other than the missionary position has forced anyone to do so. You are conflating laws ALLOWING a behavior or act, with laws COMPELLING that behavior or act; they are NOT the same thing at all. The laws of this nation permit the publication of pornography; they do not compel one single individual to buy pornography. The law allows one to smoke; it has never compelled anyone to do so. The law allows one to consume alcohol; it does NOT compel anyone to drink it.

It is every bit as wrong and foolish to suggest that government "protect you" by preventing you by law from doing any of the above "immoral acts", as it is to suggest that government protect you from obesity by telling you what foods to eat; that government protect you from injury, by forcing you to have an airbag in your car, or that government protect you from poverty by supporting you from cradle to grave, even if you choose to be indolent and slothful. Every single action and choice I have mentioned here, is just that, a matter of individual choice. It is totally intellectually inconsistent, to suggest that government should protect you from one set of actions and consequences, and not another. I find it ironic, to say the least, that both liberals and religious conservatives want a nanny state to intervene against behaviors and choices they dislike, and refrain from intervening against behaviors and choices they support. Apparently BOTH groups believe that others who do not march in lockstep with their own social agenda, need to be treated like errant children, and confined to the playpen. That's authoritarian nonsense, born of a desire to control other people's lives. Truth be told, whether the impulse comes from the left or the right makes no difference; it's NOT liberal, it's NOT conservative; it's simply statist, and an assault on liberty. Of course, if we were as individuals more self-disciplined, more responsible, and of better character (all of which we individually completely control), we would not be wanting government to protect us from ourselves, nor would we have any need for it to do so, but then, that would be too much like common sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

koshergirl, I am your super hero. I will fly to you rescue to prevent anyone

(1) from the government forcing your to have an abortion

(2) from the government forcing you to marry a woman

You are goofy.

 

[koshergrl]

Please quote me saying the government forced anyone into having an abortion.

Again, lies.

I said Roe v. Wade forced a LAW upon an unwilling majority. There was a law passed that the majority did not want or approve.

tsk, tsk.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Immaterial, koshergirl, what you are saying. SCOTUS spoke, end of that. And you are wrong, yet again.

ABCNEWS.com : Poll: Abortion Support Conditional ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 54 percent favor the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 ruling that made it so. While 42 percent want the government and the courts to make abortions harder to get, more either support the status quo, or favor fewer restrictions.

Still, Americans long have been uneasy with the procedure and the reasons it's done — and these doubts remain. Eight in 10 or more say an abortion should be legal to save the woman's life, to preserve her health, or when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. A much smaller majority, 54 percent, supports legal abortion if there's evidence the baby will be physically impaired.

 

[The Gadfly]

Please quote me saying the government forced anyone into having an abortion.

Again, lies.

I said Roe v. Wade forced a LAW upon an unwilling majority. There was a law passed that the majority did not want or approve.

tsk, tsk.

That's debatable, but even so, the only thing "forced" on anyone, was having to accept the behavior of those they disagreed with; no more no less. You are NOT "forced" to agree with it, or like it, or stop publicly denouncing it, or stop trying to persuade others not to do it. You remain entirely free to do any and all of those things. The ONLY things you are forbidden to do is use the coercive power of the state to stop another from having an abortion, and/or break other laws to block someone else's access to it. It's called "freedom"; do try to get used to it. BTW I am a conservative; I just don't believe that there's anything "conservative" about trying to legislate my religious views on those who do not share them. Forcing someone to be a Christian, or adopt "Christian values", flies in the face of both liberty and the traditional Christian ethos...at least since the INQUISITION, and if bringing THAT back is part of ANYONE'S agenda, I want no part of it!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I said Roe v. Wade forced a LAW upon an unwilling majority. There was a law passed that the majority did not want or approve.

Roe v. Wade isn’t a ‘law.’ Nor was any law ‘forced’ on anyone.

And in our Constitutional Republic the majority doesn’t determine who will or will not have his rights. Civil rights are not subject to the approval of the majority.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Gay marriage being legal isn't forcing you to have a gay marriage or even approve of it.

Marijuana being legal isn't forcing you to use it or approve of others who use it.

You either side with freedom on these issues, or you don't. Me I side with freedom as often as possible, whether they're freedoms I choose to exercise or not. I don't own a gun, can't hit the broadside of a barn, but having gun rights in the United States is incredibly important to me.

When you say killing is "freedom," then you lose all credibility. It isn't "liberty" to pull the arms and legs off of others.

When did i say killing is freedom?

Or is this another instance of you being pro-choice, and agreeing with me, but pretending that isn't your stance so that the religious fundamentalists (who view you as a hell-bound heathen) will side with you?

 

[catzmeow]

Why is it only morality originating from religion that is vilified?

This is a false allegation. I hate Nazis of all kinds, whether they are energy nazis, food nazis, or religious fascists who think women shouldn't be elected to the presidency.

 

[Uncensored2008]

koshergirl, I am your super hero. I will fly to you rescue to prevent anyone

(1) from the government forcing your to have an abortion

(2) from the government forcing you to marry a woman

You are goofy.

Will you fly in a save the fetuses from being forced to have an abortion that I guarantee THEY don't want to have?

The executioner isn't force to cut heads off, so beheadings should be legal - leftist "logic."

Try asking the victim what THEY think of the whole thing.

fakey jake is "pro choice." Rapists CHOOSE to rape victims - I guess fakey jake supports rape, he's "pro choice."

 

[Uncensored2008]

When did i say killing is freedom?

Abortion is the killing of a human.

That is biological fact, irrefutable. You view abortion as the greatest expression of freedom known to mankind. Ergo, you see killing as freedom.

Or is this another instance of you being pro-choice, and agreeing with me, but pretending that isn't your stance so that the religious fundamentalists (who view you as a hell-bound heathen) will side with you?

I am pro-choice. I support choice between cable and dish. I support school choice (do you? most pro-aborts don't!) I support a choice between Coke and Pepsi, between Nvidia and AMD, I'm pro-choice.

I'm also anti-abortion.

I believe in liberty. I believe that a civil society enacts laws to protect the least of us. I believe that we cannot take life without due process. We don't put convicted, mass murderers to death without judicial review. I must condemn putting our children to death without at least the same protections afforded mass murderers.

 

[Nosmo King]

koshergirl, I am your super hero. I will fly to you rescue to prevent anyone

(1) from the government forcing your to have an abortion

(2) from the government forcing you to marry a woman

You are goofy.

Will you fly in a save the fetuses from being forced to have an abortion that I guarantee THEY don't want to have?

The executioner isn't force to cut heads off, so beheadings should be legal - leftist "logic."

Try asking the victim what THEY think of the whole thing.

fakey jake is "pro choice." Rapists CHOOSE to rape victims - I guess fakey jake supports rape, he's "pro choice."

Uncensored,
Do you believe in smaller less intrusive government? In a government that should not control your personal life? Do you believe that every individual has a right to his or her own reproductive circumstance? Do you believe that no government should have the power to tell you when to have children, how many children to have and how best to raise the children you have?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored, your comments are worthless because they are not grounded in reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When did i say killing is freedom?

Abortion is the killing of a human.

That is biological fact, irrefutable. You view abortion as the greatest expression of freedom known to mankind. Ergo, you see killing as freedom.

Or is this another instance of you being pro-choice, and agreeing with me, but pretending that isn't your stance so that the religious fundamentalists (who view you as a hell-bound heathen) will side with you?

I am pro-choice. I support choice between cable and dish. I support school choice (do you? most pro-aborts don't!) I support a choice between Coke and Pepsi, between Nvidia and AMD, I'm pro-choice.

I'm also anti-abortion.

I believe in liberty. I believe that a civil society enacts laws to protect the least of us. I believe that we cannot take life without due process. We don't put convicted, mass murderers to death without judicial review. I must condemn putting our children to death without at least the same protections afforded mass murderers.

You are progressive right wing pro-lifer, who wants to use big government to force your belief on others. That's your right, and, yes, you are a progressive.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored,
Do you believe in smaller less intrusive government? In a government that should not control your personal life?

Are you asking if I would support the repeal of laws against rape, because it is a personal choice on the part of the rapist if he wants to rape or not?

Do you believe that every individual has a right to his or her own reproductive circumstance?

Shouldn't the intended victim get some say in the reproductive question? Besides, how can you be sure the rapist intends to reproduce?

Do you believe that no government should have the power to tell you when to have children, how many children to have and how best to raise the children you have?

I think laws that protect women from sexual assault don't infringe the rights of the rapist.

Your right to pull arms and legs off end at your own appendages. A civil society constrains you from pulling the arms and legs off of others, even though you find them inconvenient.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored, your comments are worthless because they are not grounded in reality.

So you support rape, since the rapist makes a choice, and you're "pro-choice," right?

Unless what you really mean is that you're pro-abortion.

 

[Newby]

Of course gays can, especially in California where there is no difference in the method or legality of ending such relationships. They can't access benefits under federal laws.

Which is neither here nor there. At least not for these purposes. The rightness or wrongness of same sex relationships is outside of and a distraction to the larger picture of there being no compromise on the issue no matter how much liberals want to browbeat everyone into acceptance.

That's where I disagree with you, it will be accepted as a standard, it's getting closer and closer every day. Things that one would have thought would have never been accepted 50 or more years ago, such as women voting, civil rights, etc... are considered completely normal today. Children are taught from a very young age today that being gay is 'okay', it's not abnormal, to accept 'diversity' in people, etc... Almost every television show on today has a gay person or gay couple on it. It's been bombarded into pop culture for the last 10 to 15 years now, and the next generations coming up will not have issue with it. So, I don't think society will collapse from fracture on social issues. It's all about the money, who has to give it up, who gets it, etc.. that will cause the fracture.

 

[Dragon]

There is no example in real history of any civilization ever collapsing due to "moral degeneracy." Not one.

Having said that, I want to acknowledge something and at the same time combat a stereotype. This is not a struggle between legislating and not legislating morality. This is, on a cultural level, a struggle between two moralities mostly with regard to sex, but also with regard to the environment (except that the latter is more muddled; there are environmentalists who approach it from an evangelical Christian standpoint, check out the "Creation Care" movement: Evangelical Environmental Network).

On sexual matters, the new morality centers around consent, respect, and equality. The movement for gay rights is not just about it being "not wrong" to be gay or to have gay sex, but also about it BEING wrong -- morally wrong -- to deny rights or equal treatment to gay people. The abortion-rights movement is part and parcel of the women's movement generally, since, along with contraception, it is a way to help put women on an equal footing with men. (If women must worry about getting pregnant whenever they have sex, then they are not on an equal footing, because men can walk away from a sexual encounter without obligation or concern.)

The reason that we have been divided is because the new morality has been struggling against the old one: a morality based on ancient authoritarian teaching that was developed in an age when maximizing birthrates was desirable, even necessary, and so subordinated women's sexuality and reproductive behavior to men (because women had larger families that way), confined most women to a brood-mare role in life, and condemned homosexuality as a means of maximizing the number of people engaged in procreation.

What we are seeing now is not further or increased division, but a decline of division, as the new morality has largely won. As the religious right declines and dies out, the divisions over these cultural matters will decrease, not increase.