Time: Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions

Vikingwoman wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:If not, can you name any other reasoning behind gay marriage bans?


Yes, the godless Nazis after coming to power with a huge homosexual component in their early brown shirt brigades, turned on homosexuals not because of religion, but because they were a minority.   Throughout history minorities independent of religious beliefs have been persecuted.  A person who is not a homosexual may feel uncomfortable with the simple difference in a person's choices than some elaborate religious condemnation.  I think this is far more primal than superficial religious tenets.

I should have included "...in American politics."  

2seaoat.  Please.  Let's be honest here.  Gay people couldn't get married because of the religious point of view.  You're arguing against an objective fact here.   Those who refuse to serve gay couples moving forward will do so on the basis of religion.   Here again, objective fact.  Prior to last weeks ruling, several states were scrambling to pass "Religious Freedom" laws aimed at oppressing the LGBT community.   There is absolutely no question as to the source of gay marriage bans in the US.

Correct Boards. Everyone knows the gay opposition is religion based. Oats is irrational, no doubt.

PkrBum wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:If not, can you name any other reasoning behind gay marriage bans?


Yes, the godless Nazis after coming to power with a huge homosexual component in their early brown shirt brigades, turned on homosexuals not because of religion, but because they were a minority.   Throughout history minorities independent of religious beliefs have been persecuted.  A person who is not a homosexual may feel uncomfortable with the simple difference in a person's choices than some elaborate religious condemnation.  I think this is far more primal than superficial religious tenets.

I should have included "...in American politics."  

2seaoat.  Please.  Let's be honest here.  Gay people couldn't get married because of the religious point of view.  You're arguing against an objective fact here.   Those who refuse to serve gay couples moving forward will do so on the basis of religion.   Here again, objective fact.  Prior to last weeks ruling, several states were scrambling to pass "Religious Freedom" laws aimed at oppressing the LGBT community.   There is absolutely no question as to the source of gay marriage bans in the US.

Correct Boards. Everyone knows the gay opposition is religion based. Oats is irrational, no doubt.

Why couldn't it be nature based?

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:If not, can you name any other reasoning behind gay marriage bans?


Yes, the godless Nazis after coming to power with a huge homosexual component in their early brown shirt brigades, turned on homosexuals not because of religion, but because they were a minority.   Throughout history minorities independent of religious beliefs have been persecuted.  A person who is not a homosexual may feel uncomfortable with the simple difference in a person's choices than some elaborate religious condemnation.  I think this is far more primal than superficial religious tenets.

I should have included "...in American politics."  

2seaoat.  Please.  Let's be honest here.  Gay people couldn't get married because of the religious point of view.  You're arguing against an objective fact here.   Those who refuse to serve gay couples moving forward will do so on the basis of religion.   Here again, objective fact.  Prior to last weeks ruling, several states were scrambling to pass "Religious Freedom" laws aimed at oppressing the LGBT community.   There is absolutely no question as to the source of gay marriage bans in the US.

Correct Boards. Everyone knows the gay opposition is religion based. Oats is irrational, no doubt.

Why couldn't it be nature based?

Because it isn't nature based.  Virtually ever mammalian species exhibits homosexual behavior.  

Opposition to gay marriage comes from one place, and one place only.

boards of FL wrote:


The precedent that was set by the Supreme Court basically tells us that we can't oppress people or withhold rights from them unless we have a good reason to do so.  What on earth is wrong with that?  

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Actually I never seen a complicated device( like a one celled animal) make itself without outside guidance...so if you want to believe that primordial ooze had a vast intelligence then fine. I choose to believe it was just mud and some other force formed life from it. Your faith is mud worship, mine is creator worship. I can live with that....honestly boards with your dogmatic zeal between global warming and evolution , well... I would rather talk with a Jehovah Witness.

The "God of the gaps" argument.  This basically sums up what I said earlier in this thread.  Religion finds an area of knowledge that science hasn't yet explained and then hides there.  

What happened before the big bang, or was there even a "before the big bang"?   Science hasn't yet figured that out.  Must be god!

How did life originate in the universe?  Science hasn't yet figured that out yet.  Must be god!

We have seen how this plays out.  Why does the sun rise and set?  Must be god!  Well, no.  Actually we live on a planet that revolves around the sun.  The rising and setting sun is a result of the Earth's rotation.

Why does the tide go in and out?  Must be the ocean god!  Well, no.  The moon is responsible for that.  It is a naturally occurring phenomenon that we fully understand.

Why does it rain?  Must be the rain god!  Well, no.  .....

Therein lies the problem with the "God of the gaps" argument.  It is only a matter of time before there are no more gaps for religion to hide in.  As Neil Degrasse Tyson puts it in this video, when you make arguments like the one that TEO just made, "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:Do I think government uses the oppressed for their own agenda?  YES

You clearly have your eyes closed, ears covered, and you're repeatedly shouting "I can't hear you!  I can't hear you!" at this point so I'll just say for everyone else here that you have this completely wrong.  

Religion used the government to oppress others based upon religious doctrine.  Completely ignorant, completely barbaric, religious doctrine.  That ended last week.   If you want to feel sorry for someone, look no further than the religous.  Their brand of hatred and oppression is no longer enforced or legitimized by the US government.  

Great day for humanity.  Great day for Americans.  Terrible day for the religious.

2seaoat wrote:Do I think government uses the oppressed for their own agenda? YES

Orwellian Doublethink.  The Supreme Court determines that a class of citizens should get equal protection under the law, and somebody argues that the government who was taking those fundamental rights away from that class of citizens is setting their own agenda.  Splendid logic.

Religion has nothing to do with this Supreme Court Case.  Many denominations have openly accepted same sex marriages for years, as have many states, rather this case has to do with the affirmation that marriage is a fundamental right of every citizen and if government is to restrict that fundamental right it must go beyond a simple rational basis for a classification system which limits who can get married, but must show a compelling state reason why those individuals cannot be married.   There is absolutely nothing in this decision which harms religion or Christians.   Red herrings galore.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:No Boards believes .....