Support NeoGAF

[Suikoguy]

I don't know, but in the case that Davis actually makes headway in this crusade, it seems just petty enough to fight to retroactively invalidate licenses since she was arrested.

She exhausted all legal recourse through her crazy ass lawyer.
Hence why she is in Jail.

You are right in the sense it would be untested waters, if somehow she got back on the job.

 

[Pillville]

Serious question to those that bring up that "its the law". If the Law was to NOT issue a license to a gay couple and an elected official did it anyway because they were morally compelled to do so and were put in jail, would you be applauding the act as heroism?

A government employee would still be doing something they are not allowed to do, so yes, I would want the same outcome. How is this even a question?

I would not be "applauding" them, because they would be fighting the battle in the wrong way and hurting their own cause.

 

[PJV3]

It's a shame the judge can't force whoever has the responsibility of impeaching her to convene and get it done.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Serious question to those that bring up that "its the law". If the Law was to NOT issue a license to a gay couple and an elected official did it anyway because they were morally compelled to do so and were put in jail, would you be applauding the act as heroism?

False equivalence on just about every level.

 

[geardo]

It's a shame the judge can't force whoever has the responsibility of impeaching her to convene and get it done.

That's not so bad, checks and balances and all. They'll just elect some other idiot anyways. What's truly a shame is that she's famous for being a disgusting bigot, and is probably gonna make bank off of that.

 

[Zoe]

It's a shame the judge can't force whoever has the responsibility of impeaching her to convene and get it done.

 

[GJS]

Have Casey Davis and Kay Schwartz changed their minds yet?
No one seems to be challenging them.

 

[Bisnic]

Reaction to all the religious freedom cries:

lol where is this from?

 

[Suikoguy]

False equivalence on just about every level.

The key difference being, one is of exclusion one is of inclusion.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Serious question to those that bring up that "its the law". If the Law was to NOT issue a license to a gay couple and an elected official did it anyway because they were morally compelled to do so and were put in jail, would you be applauding the act as heroism?

lol..If slavery was the law of the land and this elected official started an underground railroad to help free slaves, and was caught and jailed, would you be applauding the act as heroism?

I'm guessing no..

 

[LegendofLex]

Serious question to those that bring up that "its the law". If the Law was to NOT issue a license to a gay couple and an elected official did it anyway because they were morally compelled to do so and were put in jail, would you be applauding the act as heroism?

Yes, because they wouldn't be a state actor who's attempting to discriminate unlawfully based on religious beliefs that government is not allowed to enforce, they would be a state actor who is defying an order to discriminate. If we lived in a world where the 14th amendment didn't exist and discrimination wasn't a legally acknowledged thing, I would applaud the act because I'm in favor of advancing toward equal protection under the law.

The reason why people say this lady should "follow the law" is because this question has been settled and as a state actor she is specifically prohibited from this type of discrimination at the constitutional level. She's effectively the same-sex marriage equivalent of George Wallace.

 

[crowphoenix]

Serious question to those that bring up that "its the law". If the Law was to NOT issue a license to a gay couple and an elected official did it anyway because they were morally compelled to do so and were put in jail, would you be applauding the act as heroism?

Yes. Because that is giving rights to another person and not taking them away.

 

[Chaplain]

I am not going to respond to everyone. What I will say is that this clerk is entitled to believe what she wants and so are those that believe she is wrong. Each person is a moral being created with intrinsic value and worth. People are free to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, or they are free to redefine marriage to mean whatever they want it to mean (like what happened this year). Both views take a moral stand and make an absolute claim for their beliefs: each side believes that their belief is right. It would be ludicrous to believe, as moral beings, that everyone is going to agree with everyone else, or that everyone should be forced to believe what the other believes.

My person complaint is that I see (as do others) history about to repeat itself. I think Herbert Butterfield's (Regius Professor of History and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge) analysis on human nature in the aftermath of World War 2 explains the clash of worldviews that this thread and many in the United States espouse and ultimately where it will lead:

"…it seems to me that Christianity alone attacks the seat of evil in the kind of world we have been considering … It addresses itself precisely to the crust of self-righteousness which, by the nature of its teaching, it has to dissolve before it can do anything else with man. The more human beings are … incapable … of any profound self-analysis, the more we shall find that self-righteousness hardens, so that it is just the thick-skinned who are more sure of being right than anyone else … At its worst it brings us to that mythical messianism – that messianic hoax – of the twentieth century which comes perilously near to the thesis: “Just one little war more against the last remaining enemies of righteousness, and then the world will be cleansed, and we can start building Paradise.” (p. 41)

Regardless if what a person believes, history bares the scares of what happens when a society declares one side to be morally incorrect and at some point does everything in its power to eliminate those that hold to a contrary point of view. There is just no way this is going to be avoided.

 

[LegendofLex]

Regardless if what a person believes, history bares the scares of what happens when a society declares one side to be morally incorrect and at some point does everything in its power to eliminate those that hold to a contrary point of view. There is just no way this is going to be avoided.

A state actor isn't allowed to pass judgment based on what's "morally correct." They're regulated by the constitution. You don't need to make a moral judgment to make the assertion that a state actor is bound by the regulations that have been thrust upon the government - you simply need to look at the rules we've established for how government is allowed to operate. The government (and people acting on its behalf) do not have the right to moral self-determination and sincerely held religious belief that persons do.

In that light, "moral/political correctness" is a non-sequitur, and has nothing to do with what to do when someone flouts the laws we've reached through the political process. All that matters is "what are the rights that have been defined?" and "does this action violate those rights?" These are non-moral questions.

 

[Prophet Steve]

lol where is this from?

A video made for the Emmys, it's pretty good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovqM72em1dA

 

[pigeon]

Regardless if what a person believes, history bares the scares of what happens when a society declares one side to be morally incorrect and at some point does everything in its power to eliminate those that hold to a contrary point of view. There is just no way this is going to be avoided.

Well, maybe it could be avoided with plurality and ecumenism? Maybe we could, I don't know, start off by mandating certain rights for people regardless of their creed and make sure we don't contravene those? Just a thought.

 

[RM8]

Regardless if what a person believes, history bares the scares of what happens when a society declares one side to be morally incorrect and at some point does everything in its power to eliminate those that hold to a contrary point of view. There is just no way this is going to be avoided.

No one is telling this woman to stop believing whatever she believes, though. She's just not fit anymore for this job since her beliefs clash with the law. And really, it's so dumb to see this issue as something with "two sides" - only one side wants to prevent some people from having the right to marry.

 

[Arkeband]

I am not going to respond to everyone. What I will say is that this clerk is entitled to believe what she wants and so are those that believe she is wrong. Each person is a moral being created with intrinsic value and worth. People are free to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, or they are free to redefine marriage to mean whatever they want it to mean (like what happened this year).

Hoooold up. Marriage was a thing before Christianity was even a twinkle in Ugg the Caveman's eye. You don't get to revise human history here, sir.

Regardless if what a person believes, history bares the scares of what happens when a society declares one side to be morally incorrect and at some point does everything in its power to eliminate those that hold to a contrary point of view. There is just no way this is going to be avoided.

Let's pretend you're not equating people fighting for equal rights to Nazis for a second and just admire the fact that we find you morally incorrect but somehow you're perfectly fine. I think you and yours will continue to hold back humanity for a very long time, you have nothing to fear.

 

[Chaplain]

And really, it's so dumb to see this issue as something with "two sides" - only one side wants to prevent some people from having the right to marry.

Ethics and morality are worldview dependent. So, its impossible to separate them from each other.

The re-definition of marriage is what people have been opposed to. That definition comes from God himself in the book of Genesis: this is the claim they believe in. That is why they see it as an attack on their faith. Even people who do not hold to this definition of marriage see it as I described.

"This is an effort to condition the public into automatically equating faith with bigotry…lawsuits against small business [are] resting on the notion that acting on genuinely held faith is bigotry per se. Under these rules, freedom of conscience is squashed under the JACKBOOT of liberals, all in the Orwellian name of ‘equality and fairness.’ Horribly, the gay civil rights movement has morphed into a Gay Gestapo. Its ranks will now do the punishing of those who dare to be different or dissent from the approved leftist dogma. The real target is the church and temple. If the left can convince our society to force people of faith to violate their sacraments in the name of ‘equality,’ why would we allow that to stop at the church door?" (Tammy Bruce, Lesbian Talk show Host)

 

[HylianTom]

I am not going to respond to everyone. What I will say is that this clerk is entitled to believe what she wants and so are those that believe she is wrong. Each person is a moral being created with intrinsic value and worth. People are free to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, or they are free to redefine marriage to mean whatever they want it to mean (like what happened this year). Both views take a moral stand and make an absolute claim for their beliefs: each side believes that their belief is right. It would be ludicrous to believe, as moral beings, that everyone is going to agree with everyone else, or that everyone should be forced to believe what the other believes.

My person complaint is that I see (as do others) history about to repeat itself. I think Herbert Butterfield's (Regius Professor of History and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge) analysis on human nature in the aftermath of World War 2 explains the clash of worldviews that this thread and many in the United States espouse and ultimately where it will lead:

Regardless if what a person believes, history bares the scares of what happens when a society declares one side to be morally incorrect and at some point does everything in its power to eliminate those that hold to a contrary point of view. There is just no way this is going to be avoided.

A significant element the error here is in conflating Holy Matrimony with Civil Marriage. She seems to be under the impression that she's handling the processing of the former. She is not. She's handling the process of the latter, which is a distinct and separate institution.

You can gussy-up your argument with all sorts of rhetorical and historical flourish, but none of it negates the fact that that these - in this era - are two separate institutions. It's a pretty simple concept, and I have zero pity for any public official who refuses to acknowledge this basic distinction.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

"everyone should be forced to believe what the other believes. "

I'm sort of amazed this deep in the conversation, people still demonstrate such a fundamental misunderstanding. No one is dictating what she is and is not allowed to believe. She is permitted to be a stark-raving anti-gay crusader in her personal life, but she doesn't get to change the way the law of the land works on an arbitrary basis.

 

[Bel Marduk]

Can we codify Godwin's Law into the rules here on GAF?

 

[Citadelofmythoughts]

That definition comes from God himself in the book of Genesis: this is the claim they believe in. That is why they see it as an attack on their faith.

I have no obligation to support someone's retcon.

As has been stated before, marriage predates Christianity (and Judaism) by centuries.

 

[Suikoguy]

Ethics and morality are worldview dependent. So, its impossible to separate them from each other.

Do you know the difference between being exclusionary and inclusionary?

You can't just "yada yada worldview yada yada" and expect it to explain it away.

 

[LegendofLex]

The re-definition of marriage is what people have been opposed to. That definition comes from God himself in the book of Genesis: this is the claim they believe in. That is why they see it as an attack on their faith.

Other definitions have existed throughout history. Why is it only when it's declared that the Christian definition is not the only one to be enshrined in law that their faith is being attacked? Didn't all those other definitions exist regardless of the law? As long as Christians can celebrate their own definition and have their marriages be legally recognized, how does it impact their faith that others get the same legal protections and benefits?

Why are Christians so special that when the legal definition of marriage expands to accommodate views beyond their own, their efforts to defy the law are glorified, while other groups (same-sex marriage supporters) had to submit to the limits of the political process when their definition of marriage was specifically excluded?

Don't same-sex marriage supporters have equal grounds to say "my way of life was under attack," with the point of difference being that they were able to successfully appeal to equal protection mandates to defend their legal view (in addition to the fact that they were actually barred from having their view of marriage legally recognized, whereas Christians do not)?

 

[Darksol]

The parallel to Daniel's story is that those in power (who were anti-semitic) were the ones who put the law in state legislation. Your analysis is a false equivalence. Daniel's story is similar to the Kentucky clerk in that a new law was put in place that violated Daniel's faith. This is no difference to what happened to Romanian Christian's when the communist party took over and put every Christian in jail who would not put Stalin above Jesus. An example of life under the communist party:



My examples share similarities in that the state was used to force people to violate their faith or suffer various types of consequences (death, jail, torture, loss of employment, etc).



Well, the worldview that is coming into power is a worldview centered on moral relativism. This is exactly the world others are going to be forced to live in. Those that oppose this worldview will be forced to suffer the consequences by the hands of those that believe in tolerating others only when they tolerate whatever they believe. There will be horrible consequences for taking this route that history bares witness to.

The great thing about America is that your stupid views about The Book of Daniel have absolutely no ability to dictate the rights of other people.

 

[RM8]

Ethics and morality are worldview dependent. So, its impossible to separate them from each other.

The re-definition of marriage is what people have been opposed to. That definition comes from God himself in the book of Genesis: this is the claim they believe in. That is why they see it as an attack on their faith. Even people who do not hold to this definition of marriage see it as I described.

But no one is bringing up religious marriage. Marriage as a social construct, which predates Christianity, shouldn't be bound by any religion whatsoever. Your country is not a theocracy and it's time to get over it, really.

 

[crowphoenix]

I kinda love that the idea of allowing people to marry who they want will somehow bring on a great disaster.

 

[Arkeband]

"This is an effort to condition the public into automatically equating faith with bigotry…lawsuits against small business [are] resting on the notion that acting on genuinely held faith is bigotry per se. Under these rules, freedom of conscience is squashed under the JACKBOOT of liberals, all in the Orwellian name of ‘equality and fairness.’ Horribly, the gay civil rights movement has morphed into a Gay Gestapo. Its ranks will now do the punishing of those who dare to be different or dissent from the approved leftist dogma. The real target is the church and temple. If the left can convince our society to force people of faith to violate their sacraments in the name of ‘equality,’ why would we allow that to stop at the church door?" (Tammy Bruce, Lesbian Talk show Host)

...where in the actual fuck are you finding these quotes?

 

[neshcom]

...where in the actual fuck are you finding these quotes?

FWD:FWD:FWD:RE:FWD:THE SHOKCING TRUTH ABT OBUMMER'S GAY MUJAHIDEEN

She exhausted all legal recourse through her crazy ass lawyer.
Hence why she is in Jail.

You are right in the sense it would be untested waters, if somehow she got back on the job.

I'm not saying it's necessarily something she could do right now, just that those licenses may not be worth scrap paper if some chain of command thing is broken. I can't find the article I read yesterday, but it was a real concern if they issued licenses and she didn't authorize her deputies.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I kinda love that the idea of allowing people to marry who they want will somehow bring on a great disaster.

The fabulous gay flood. Horrific but with a rainbow in the sky.

XD

 

[Shy Fingers]

Ethics and morality are worldview dependent. So, its impossible to separate them from each other.

The re-definition of marriage is what people have been opposed to. That definition comes from God himself in the book of Genesis: this is the claim they believe in. That is why they see it as an attack on their faith. Even people who do not hold to this definition of marriage see it as I described.

Since when do we make laws based on god's rules? Only 2 of the 10 commandments are considered law.

 

[ReAxion]

...where in the actual fuck are you finding these quotes?

professional concern trolls.

Like, somebody capitalized jackboot for effect, and said the words "Gay Gestapo" I assume without irony, and that's presented as a rational argument.

 

[Pappasman]

This is nonsense. Allowing same sex couples to get married isn't some kind of attack on you or your religion. Nor does it" devalue" marriage (whatever the fuck that means). Even if you are religiously opposed to it, it doesn't affect you. Get over yourself.

If you have trouble interacting with people different from yourself you are gonna have a hell of a time trying to operate in a modern society.

 

[Ralemont]

I'm so glad "intolerant of the intolerant" arguments are ban-worthy on NeoGAF.

 

[aeolist]

i just don't get why this is suddenly the breaking point when atheists, agnostics, and people of non-christian religions have been getting married in this country for decades with no attempt being made to stop them

divorce should also be illegal if we're going by the bible, and tons of other weird shit like marrying your brother's widow would be mandatory

 

[Dai101]

The fabulous gay flood. Horrific but with a rainbow in the sky.

XD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YbRASlEMqw

HALLELUJAH!

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

i just don't get why this is suddenly the breaking point when atheists, agnostics, and people of non-christian religions have been getting married in this country for decades with no attempt being made to stop them

divorce should also be illegal if we're going by the bible, and tons of other weird shit like marrying your brother's widow would be mandatory

It's easier to cherrypick the parts we like.

 

[Goliath]

This is nonsense. Allowing same sex couples to get married isn't some kind of attack on you or your religion. Nor does it" devalue" marriage (whatever the fuck that means). Even if you are religiously opposed to it, it doesn't affect you. Get over yourself.

If you have trouble interacting with people different from yourself you are gonna have a hell of a time trying to operate in a modern society.

Yea, nothing devalues marriage like several divorces and having children through adultery out of wedlock.

But hey when your passed that stage in life and you have the magic home base button called "Reborn Christian", I guess it's easy to cheat your way in to heaven.

 

[TestOfTide]

This is nonsense. Allowing same sex couples to get married isn't some kind of attack on you or your religion. Nor does it" devalue" marriage (whatever the fuck that means). Even if you are religiously opposed to it, it doesn't affect you. Get over yourself.

If you have trouble interacting with people different from yourself you are gonna have a hell of a time trying to operate in a modern society.

No man. It's the "GAY GESTAPO" out to literally persecute Christians and force them to be Muslim or Athiest.

Seriously though, why is it always the Chrsitians that seem to have the biggest problem with the concept of equal fucking treatment of others.

Ethics and morality are worldview dependent. So, its impossible to separate them from each other.

The re-definition of marriage is what people have been opposed to. That definition comes from God himself in the book of Genesis: this is the claim they believe in. That is why they see it as an attack on their faith. Even people who do not hold to this definition of marriage see it as I described.

What you seem to be purposefully ignoring (I say purposefully because I know you're not stupid) is that freedom to practice your beliefs doesn't mean the freedom to IMPOSE YOUR BELIEFS ONTO OTHERS. The only "beliefs" that get to be imposed on people are the fucking laws written and interpreted by the government as well as the actions of the executive branch (as long as said executive actions are within legal authority).

 

[RM8]

For all our problems, we had little to no opposition to gay marriage here in Mexico, and that's pretty cool. Especially not of the religious kind - we have been at war with the church twice and they know better than trying to get involved with the state at this point.

i just don't get why this is suddenly the breaking point when atheists, agnostics, and people of non-christian religions have been getting married in this country for decades with no attempt being made to stop them

divorce should also be illegal if we're going by the bible, and tons of other weird shit like marrying your brother's widow would be mandatory

They don't care about other sins like lying, cheating or divorcing because they do those things all the time.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

The definition of marriage within Christianity has also been altered dramatically over years (and I don't mean just since biblical times, but even more recent). There are denominations that are fine with gay marriage. There are also denominations (such as the one I was raised in - Southern Baptist) who more narrowly defined marriage as between one white female and one white male of similar economic background and family social status (the blacks could get married too - but only at their own church). However, I get the impression that if I acted as a county clerk and asked to look at family trees and income statements before signing, I would probably also be held in contempt.

The whole thing feels like a huge No True Scotsman - Oh, those Christians believe in gay marriage? Well, it's because they aren't real Christians. Churches can't seem to agree on anything - but each stands firm in their believe that they represent the true morality of their entire flock. I'm certainly convinced that the primary source of opposition to gay marriage is from Christian sources, but I also remain unconvinced that it's actually representative in the way that those most vociferous in crusading like to affirm it is.

I don't mean this in an obnoxious "not all Christians!" way, but in more of a general statement about why I don't take anyway who says "As a Christian, I believe..." very seriously - you believe because you believe, not because you're a Christian - it simply doesn't hold up that anything is dictated for you, since when we actually look under the microscope we find a very disparate and diverse set of social and political views with only a scant amount being absolutely and unequivocally mandated with a biblical basis (gay marriage certainly not being one).

Edit: This was kind of rambly, so as a summary I'll just say - I do not find a compelling reason why the opinion of an individual needs to be elevated above the opinion of another individual on the basis of that belief being "Christian", especially when Christians cannot seem to be able to create a compelling reason for even other Christians to believe what they do about a particular social institution.

 

[Hellwarden]

I feel like this whole incident is only gonna fuel the bullshit premise that Christians, mostly white, are the ones who are being oppressed in America.

 

[Rudimental]

My person complaint is that I see (as do others) history about to repeat itself. I think Herbert Butterfield's (Regius Professor of History and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge) analysis on human nature in the aftermath of World War 2 explains the clash of worldviews that this thread and many in the United States espouse and ultimately where it will lead:

Yes, history really does have a way of repeating itself...

If a man attributes all or part of his own misfortunes and those of his country to the presence of Jewish elements in the community, if he proposes to remedy this state of affairs by depriving the Jews of certain of their rights, by keeping them out of certain economic and social activities, by expelling them from the country, by exterminating all of them, we say that he has anti-Semitic opinions.

This word opinion makes us stop and think. It is the word a hostess uses to bring to an end a discussion that threatens to become acrimonious. It suggests that all points of view are equal; it reassures us, for it gives an inoffensive appearance to ideas by reducing them to the level of tastes. All tastes are natural; all opinions are permitted. Tastes, colours, and opinions are not open to discussion. In the name of democratic institutions, in the name of freedom of opinion, the anti-Semite asserts the right to preach the anti-Jewish crusade everywhere.

From Anti-Semite and Jew by Jean-Paul Sartre, written in the 40's.

 

[Kenai]

Ethics and morality are worldview dependent. So, its impossible to separate them from each other.

The re-definition of marriage is what people have been opposed to. That definition comes from God himself in the book of Genesis: this is the claim they believe in. That is why they see it as an attack on their faith. Even people who do not hold to this definition of marriage see it as I described.

Naw, though. That is a specific definition of marriage from a book that a lot of people do not believe at all, especially when a lot of people (like me) feel they are cherry picking certain parts of said book and ignoring others, claiming things like being born again or whatever when it's convenient for them. I understand there's sects and all that but seriously, since there is both a separation of church and state in this country as well as several legal complications that come from a couple not being married that wish to be (for things ranging from inheritance to taxes), there is simply no precedent to impose this particular religious belief on everyone. The concept and practice of courtship and marriage existed long before that book did, and it does not have a monopoly on it.

It is not an 'attack on their faith" because they are still allowed to practice their face and partake in it. I don't understand how it is so hard to grasp that imposing their religious beliefs on others (like that particular definition of marriage) is not considered a "religious freedom" and is in fact the exact opposite, the disconnect is incredible. They do not have to get gay married if they do not want to, so they are not being attacked. That's really all there is to it.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Ethics and morality are worldview dependent. So, its impossible to separate them from each other.

The re-definition of marriage is what people have been opposed to. That definition comes from God himself in the book of Genesis: this is the claim they believe in. That is why they see it as an attack on their faith. Even people who do not hold to this definition of marriage see it as I described.

wtf

Marriage predates the bible. Enough with this misinformation nonsense. It's insulting and inappropriate.

 

[HiredN00bs]

I am not going to respond to everyone. What I will say is that this clerk is entitled to believe what she wants and so are those that believe she is wrong.

She is wrong, both legally and morally, and this can be demonstrated through rational argument.

Each person is a moral being created with intrinsic value and worth.

That's not correct. Morality varies by person and culture, and people (animals) aren't supernaturally created, they're born from sexual reproduction. Their worth is only realized by the way they are treated by others.

People are free to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, or they are free to redefine marriage to mean whatever they want it to mean (like what happened this year).

Marriage was always defined as "whatever they want it to mean." Its implementation in society has changed drastically across cultures and over time. Biblical marriage is nothing like modern marriage.

Both views take a moral stand and make an absolute claim for their beliefs: each side believes that their belief is right.

This is a false equivalence. People that argue for gay marriage make appeals to empathy and the rational, real world effects of having such an institution. Their opponents make false claims and the always ridiculous appeal to divinity.

It would be ludicrous to believe, as moral beings, that everyone is going to agree with everyone else, or that everyone should be forced to believe what the other believes.

What isn't ludicrous is expecting people to defend their moral standards through reason and evidence. You can believe all day, but the real world effect of your actions is the only thing that actually changes people's lives and is thus the only thing that matters.

My person complaint is that I see (as do others) history about to repeat itself. I think Herbert Butterfield's (Regius Professor of History and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge) analysis on human nature in the aftermath of World War 2 explains the clash of worldviews that this thread and many in the United States espouse and ultimately where it will lead:

Regardless if what a person believes, history bares the scares of what happens when a society declares one side to be morally incorrect and at some point does everything in its power to eliminate those that hold to a contrary point of view. There is just no way this is going to be avoided.

We aren't trying to eliminate anyone. We're trying to make better laws, exercise empathy and convince people that changing their minds is the right thing to do.

Don't give up on these people; you didn't give up on me, GAF, and I used to be like them.

 

[FStop7]

"everyone should be forced to believe what the other believes. "

I'm sort of amazed this deep in the conversation, people still demonstrate such a fundamental misunderstanding. No one is dictating what she is and is not allowed to believe. She is permitted to be a stark-raving anti-gay crusader in her personal life, but she doesn't get to change the way the law of the land works on an arbitrary basis.

It's an intentional misunderstanding because without it the defense force has absolutely nothing to stand on.

 

[BertramCooper]

Regardless if what a person believes, history bares the scares of what happens when a society declares one side to be morally incorrect and at some point does everything in its power to eliminate those that hold to a contrary point of view. There is just no way this is going to be avoided.

Holocaust 2.0 on its way, all thanks to the gays.

Thanks, gays.

 

[Cyan]

A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.

Remind us again about how murdering children is ok if they have demon blood?