I'm a fan of the last paragraph of the article. I might've ended it with "Representative Peter King is a fucktard." though.
"There are many ways to care for America, most of which involve challenging the powers that be. King is one of those "powers," and his love of his country is the most insincere of all. His "love" asks for subservience from its countrymen, rather than accountability from its leaders. These leaders can make our country stronger, but that means they have to stop crippling their constituents and diluting their rights. We need courage, not bombastic flag-waving from a man so blinded by irrational hate he can't even see his own hypocrisy. Representative Peter King is a fucktard."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Love is not Marriage
"Society decided that marriage is between a male and a female, not "religion"."
That's just it, Michael, Society, like religion, doesn't get to decide. To imply that two people get "different"rights because they are a male/male pair vs a female/male pair is denying individuals' their rights. Neither the government nor religion can be allowed to deny rights, or worse, give rights to some and not to others. (re: marriage)
What you've been saying all along is "I'm am part of the Society that wishes to deny rights to individuals because those rights belong *solely* to parties that I /We deem more appropriate. Intolerable.
Marriage, between two consenting adults, is an unalienable right. Which, by-they-by, might happen to be precisely why attempts at defining it are not meeting constitutional muster. The civil aspect of what privileges those rights entail are legal rights. The "contest" is to merge them and completely and irrevocably integrate the two : The right to marry shall be recognized and all of those so married shall be equal with regards to their legal status .
When one attempts to determine or establish that one married couple receives more benefit than another you, thereby, deny some basic premise of individual liberty and equality. Which, in essence, effectively terminates religious eligibility to integrate with this government in this matter.
"Society" and "Majority" are of little consequence here thanks to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
There is only conflict here because you're insisting that your definitions trump someone else's. Everyone has a right to couple up and be recognized. Marriage, i in the eyes of the state, is between two people. In other words religion(s) are no longer the defining characteristic of matrimony, people are.
I can't make you see that and don't mind if you don't see that but that is root.
Yeah, wait a minute. I was under the impression that gay couples wanted their nuptials to be recognized by the state. You're of the party that doesn't want the state to do so because of your religious(moral) beliefs, no? So, in effect, you want to force your views on the state elevating your views above those of other individuals.
This country is supposedly about the freedom of the individual and yet... here you are trying to wave the stick of "the majority". You're being a bully and using a religious majority to help swing your stick.
The point of all this is the not you nor your religious majority should ever, ever be allowed to steer much less dictate the fates and choices of individuals.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
This seems a lot like the proverbial shoe being on the other foot.
So, after eons of kicking, spitting, killing, maiming and discriminating against gays or those perceived as gay, folks are pissy? Where "folks" equates to anyone who may have had the tendency to use the term "those gays"? Folks that have been comfortable because they were "protected" in their bigotry and now... yeah, step it up.
I hear you, loud and clear, so yes, "really". Defend yourself. Not everyone can be a grown up, clearly, and there are strides to be made in every direction.
Ken is not right and he's not wrong, he's lashing out against what was once a very acceptable position at several different levels. Here he is a petulant man who is loosing some power over others that he may have once held that was supported and reinforced by like-minded folks. The seeds of hatred.
The photographer is not in the wrong, just to be clear, however, if there was a remote possibility that this photographer's BUSINESS could place another photographer into position that was not "religiously bound" and still refused to do so only then would she not have a defensible position. As it was, the couple is demanding this very photographer which makes them the hateful bigots here. Morally indefensible on their part. In this I think we agree.
And, yes, I believe that discrimination is not moral. Using religion to defend discrimination is not moral. Lashing out at these observations is petty and a loosing proposition. Those actions are not made of "free will" but rather introduced by indoctrination and as such are learned behaviors,
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
Batshit! Open up, you're allowed. Self-censorship is half overrated anyway and I can see you're only half-way there.
I admit that I was taken a little back by the firm determination of morality, however, with regards to discrimination it is, in fact, not a moral thing.
And, for the record, you called Mr. Karl skewed and clumsy, sure he weighted his views with his beliefs in the matter but you just sort of fired off like an angry fucking lunatic (and yes, I'm quite sure they procreate because I, typically, am one). Karl made me think, you made me type this batch of nonsense.
Since you clearly did try to respond how about a little something something about why you seem to think that discrimination is a moral thing. Or did that particular church pamphlet not make it to the printer?
Are you not your living God? Step it up a little bit.
Whoa, whoa, easy there big guy. You played your hand and gave the ace you were holding to the guy sitting across the table that you were playing with. You brought your position and debunked it in the same, short post.
Clearly America is much more complex that you've allowed yourself to believe.
Ah, yes, however the chef's art as a service is not contingent upon an interaction with the eater. That's why I inserted cooking homosexuals as the chef would, definitely, be required to interact at that point. "I refuse to cook gay people." is quite different than "I refuse to cook for gay people.". This type of analogy seems a clear misrepresentation/misdirection away from the type of service we're trying to refer to which is an interactive service with little to no control over the setting. And so on.