Same-sex marriage is stealing rights from God

[Jackalope]

If god is concerned about having his rights stolen, then I strongly endorse him taking his case to civil court.

The dude that is complaining on his behalf doesn't have standing.

[Foxaèr]

If god is concerned about having his rights stolen, then I strongly endorse him taking his case to civil court.

The dude that is complaining on his behalf doesn't have standing.

One would think a supposedly omnipotent deity could stand up for himself without needing his followers to do it for him.

[Rev. Rye]

According to them, same sex marriage is now not only a "right," no one has the right to oppose it. This new right is so powerful it has completely wiped out the old rights that our founding fathers enshrined in our Constitution: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association.

I'm going to need video of that before I form an opinion on that, whether he really did say that or you just took that out of proportion. Honestly, knowing what you've done so far and given that Bill Maher once denied germ theory on national TV, either one is likely.

Morality is about right and wrong and all laws declare in a legal sense one-behavior right and the opposite behavior wrong.

Not true. In my hometown of Chicago, it's illegal to fall asleep in a barber's chair and to go fishing in pajamas. In fact, there's a law still on the books that makes speaking English a crime.

Many don't realize this because they lump morality and religion together.

Like you?

But laws can and do legislate morality without legislating religion.

It's just that you're not finding any non-religious reason that works to justify banning same-sex marriage.

you don't need to be religious to know those rights or to support them. You need God to justify them, but not to legislate them.

I'm sorry, what's that about lumping morality and religion together?

Liberals can't justify why same-sex marriage is right.

Because gay people are always going to exist, their homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, and with all this in mind, they are humans who deserve the same rights as other people. And in your attempt to come up with non-religious reasons gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, you haven't come up with anything that holds up.

Florists, bakers, photographers, Internet CEOs and speakers like myself have all discovered personally that the people who say they are fighting for "tolerance" are often the most intolerant. In the name of "inclusion and diversity," those of us who have a diverse view are being excluded because we don't exhibit lock-step conformity to their intolerant agenda. We are being fired and fined for exercising our real God-given rights. How can this be? We can't work because of our political views-views that are firmly rooted in the biological facts of nature. Is this still America?

I just have to ask: what would your reaction be if someone said the same thing, but instead of having a context of opposing gay marriage, it was in an essay opposing interracial marriage? I thought you wouldn't like it.

(Maybe Sullivan is speaking of another time, but most "religious right" people I know are tolerant-they would never usurp the free speech or freedom of association rights of those with whom they disagree.)

To be fair, I'm sure if any prominent religious right-winger came out as being against free speech and having the power to abolish it, it would almost certainly be political suicide.

Can anyone see any middle ground between 1) you must celebrate my same sex marriage, and 2) God or my conscience prevents me from doing so? There is none.

Yes. There is a middle ground. It's simply saying "Do what you want with your same sex marriage. I don't care."

Speaking about this inevitable conflict between homosexuality and religious liberty she said, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

It seems more like she's saying that those who discriminate against gay couples and claim religious freedom don't have any more of a leg to stand on than people who discriminate against interracial couples and claim religious freedom.

Your right to live Christianity, or any other faith, must give way to those who demand that you affirm their lifestyle.

So, you seriously believe you're forced to be less of a Christian because homosexuality is getting more accepted? Is homosexuality, something that is mentioned less than five times in the entire Bible, really that important to your faith? If it's really the hill to die on for you, it will die out. Not because Democrats will legislate it out of existence, but because future generations will move on and reject your conception of Christianity.

That isn't tolerance. That's totalitarianism. Conform or else!

Is that really any different than the way religious people have historically treated gay people?

If you don't like the behaviors and ideas I am advocating here, you are admitting that all behaviors and ideas are not equal-that some are closer to the real objective moral truth than others. But what is the source of that objective moral truth? As we saw in the first column, the source can't be changeable you or me. It can only be God-the author of Nature's Law.

I would also like to point out that the God of the Bible decided it was good for a person to kill their children. Twice. Once with Abraham, and once with Jephthah; the second time, he didn't stop Jephthah. Does this sound like the bedrock on which an objective morality is based?

But where does morality come from, if not god?

"We Got to Live Together."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUUhDoCx8zc

In Five words, Sly Stone said more useful things about the origin of morality than anything in the Bible. Morality came about because we realised if we were going to live in a society, we'd have to moderate our behaviors, that society could be stable.

Since no one can reasonably show that same sex marriage is a right according to Nature's Law (the only objective standard),

And you haven't been able to reasonably show that same sex marriage isn't a right/

Therefore, they chant fallacious slogans and charge people with heresy by labeling them "bigots" and "homophobes."

That is bigotry. The definition of bigotry is: "having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others." This is something that has shown through in all three columns. And, I have to ask this: When your great-grandchildren are your age, do you expect them to look on your views about gay people with any more esteem than you view your great-grandfather's views on black people?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The Bible says that people should marry their relatives. Is that good advice?

[Elskidor]

The Bible says that people should marry their relatives. Is that good advice?

Yes. I've heard of a story of blue skinned people after generations of incest. Blue skin would be pretty sweet!

I do know of a couple of cousins that married and had three kids, but it was later learned that two of their kids were her brothers, who she had an affair with. All of them are very strange folk, and you can tell they have a few screws missing upstairs.

[StealthySkeptic]

---

According to them, same sex marriage is now not only a "right," no one has the right to oppose it. This new right is so powerful it has completely wiped out the old rights that our founding fathers enshrined in our Constitution: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association.

I'm going to need video of that before I form an opinion on that, whether he really did say that or you just took that out of proportion. Honestly, knowing what you've done so far and given that Bill Maher once denied germ theory on national TV, either one is likely.

Morality is about right and wrong and all laws declare in a legal sense one-behavior right and the opposite behavior wrong.

Not true. In my hometown of Chicago, it's illegal to fall asleep in a barber's chair and to go fishing in pajamas. In fact, there's a law still on the books that makes speaking English a crime.

Many don't realize this because they lump morality and religion together.

Like you?

But laws can and do legislate morality without legislating religion.

It's just that you're not finding any non-religious reason that works to justify banning same-sex marriage.

you don't need to be religious to know those rights or to support them. You need God to justify them, but not to legislate them.

I'm sorry, what's that about lumping morality and religion together?

Liberals can't justify why same-sex marriage is right.

Because gay people are always going to exist, their homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, and with all this in mind, they are humans who deserve the same rights as other people. And in your attempt to come up with non-religious reasons gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, you haven't come up with anything that holds up.

Florists, bakers, photographers, Internet CEOs and speakers like myself have all discovered personally that the people who say they are fighting for "tolerance" are often the most intolerant. In the name of "inclusion and diversity," those of us who have a diverse view are being excluded because we don't exhibit lock-step conformity to their intolerant agenda. We are being fired and fined for exercising our real God-given rights. How can this be? We can't work because of our political views-views that are firmly rooted in the biological facts of nature. Is this still America?

I just have to ask: what would your reaction be if someone said the same thing, but instead of having a context of opposing gay marriage, it was in an essay opposing interracial marriage? I thought you wouldn't like it.

(Maybe Sullivan is speaking of another time, but most "religious right" people I know are tolerant-they would never usurp the free speech or freedom of association rights of those with whom they disagree.)

To be fair, I'm sure if any prominent religious right-winger came out as being against free speech and having the power to abolish it, it would almost certainly be political suicide.

Can anyone see any middle ground between 1) you must celebrate my same sex marriage, and 2) God or my conscience prevents me from doing so? There is none.

Yes. There is a middle ground. It's simply saying "Do what you want with your same sex marriage. I don't care."

Speaking about this inevitable conflict between homosexuality and religious liberty she said, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

It seems more like she's saying that those who discriminate against gay couples and claim religious freedom don't have any more of a leg to stand on than people who discriminate against interracial couples and claim religious freedom.

Your right to live Christianity, or any other faith, must give way to those who demand that you affirm their lifestyle.

So, you seriously believe you're forced to be less of a Christian because homosexuality is getting more accepted? Is homosexuality, something that is mentioned less than five times in the entire Bible, really that important to your faith? If it's really the hill to die on for you, it will die out. Not because Democrats will legislate it out of existence, but because future generations will move on and reject your conception of Christianity.

That isn't tolerance. That's totalitarianism. Conform or else!

Is that really any different than the way religious people have historically treated gay people?

If you don't like the behaviors and ideas I am advocating here, you are admitting that all behaviors and ideas are not equal-that some are closer to the real objective moral truth than others. But what is the source of that objective moral truth? As we saw in the first column, the source can't be changeable you or me. It can only be God-the author of Nature's Law.

I would also like to point out that the God of the Bible decided it was good for a person to kill their children. Twice. Once with Abraham, and once with Jephthah; the second time, he didn't stop Jephthah. Does this sound like the bedrock on which an objective morality is based?

But where does morality come from, if not god?

"We Got to Live Together."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUUhDoCx8zc

In Five words, Sly Stone said more useful things about the origin of morality than anything in the Bible. Morality came about because we realised if we were going to live in a society, we'd have to moderate our behaviors, that society could be stable.

Since no one can reasonably show that same sex marriage is a right according to Nature's Law (the only objective standard),

And you haven't been able to reasonably show that same sex marriage isn't a right/

Therefore, they chant fallacious slogans and charge people with heresy by labeling them "bigots" and "homophobes."

That is bigotry. The definition of bigotry is: "having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others." This is something that has shown through in all three columns. And, I have to ask this: When your great-grandchildren are your age, do you expect them to look on your views about gay people with any more esteem than you view your great-grandfather's views on black people?

---

Sorry for the necro post, but I just have to say this:

[Elskidor]

God is only as retarded as people make him/her. If Mr. God is having his rights stolen from him then it is time to rewrite God and make him less of a judgmental prick.

[Losty]

I shall call you necromancer and you shall be mine

[Elskidor]

Oh man, this is kinda old. Knew it seemed sorta familiar.

[ThomM]

Sorry - the problem with YOUR rant is that it forgets that marriage is NOT a biological necessity - it is a human created event. The idea that a "god" had anything to do with it is nonsense - until you can prove a god exists - and YOU cannot. Even then - we have never had a god - state in person visibly to everyone - that he is against same sex marriage - you are invited to have your god do so. In the absence of complaint - we will assume it is okay.

There are very few animals who stay with the mother's of their babies - and stay true to them only - even humans do not do that very well. And if you use the bible - then consider that Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines (and you cannot claim that all those concubines came of their "free will").

And since it is NOT a biological necessity - the "right" falls under the category of equal rights for all. And that is what the USA stands for.