Well, I don't have anything against religious people(of any religion), but I do despise people who feel that it is their right or even obligation to force their religion and/or moral views onto others. As long as it doesn't put others at risk or cause harm to others I think people should be free to do whatever they choose(within reasonable limits)Originally Posted by P_J
No I don't think that christians in general go around hating LGBT persons, I do however think that quite a few very vocal and very public christians do, and that the christian community in general has been very quiet about condemning(at least in public) these people thus giving the general image that christians are intolerant.
As in pretty much any matter, if you let the extremists of any group go unopposed then eventually the public will eventually start to think that they must be speaking for the entire group since nobody in the group is objecting.
Like I said earlier I think that people should largely be allowed to do what they wish as long as it doesn't put others at risk or cause them harm, and therefore I think that if two LGBT people can find a priest of whatever religion they like who will willingly marry them then that's their business and theirs alone, neither you nor I have any right to forbid or prevent their actions because they think that it is immoral or offensive. What I think makes these people bigots is that they think it's their right to force their moral and in my opinion antiquated views onto others, they're free to believe whatever they want but when they try to force it onto others I think that they've crossed a line.
If you're talking about the president I think you are then he had been a senator before he became president and he has an advanced degree in law which are fairly significant credentials, moreso than those of his predecessor.
Yes actually it is as easy as that because it is discriminatory that you may not do X because of your sexual orientation just as it is discriminatory to say that you may not do X because of the color of your skin.
What the law says is irrelevant as to whether it's discrimination or not because discrimination simply means prejudicial treatment because of X, it isn't open for interpretation because it is immutable fact, now as to whether it's prohibited discrimination or not is an entirely different case. But then again there were once laws that allowed for the discrimination of people based on the color of their skin, in most civilized countries these laws are gone.
It also seems to me that the first Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
And therefore any legislation that makes use of religious reasons or morals as to the proper establishment of marriage should according to a strict interpretation be forbidden, and as marriage is inherently a religious concept it seems to me that if the state legislates on the issue at all it is in breach of that amendment and should therefore be unconstitutional.
Jefferson also wrote on the subject that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship. Thus if christian LGBT persons think that they have a right to marriage that is between god and them, not between them and other men, or between them and the state.
PS. I am not American so I have no idea what news you're referring to on the issue of the Federal Government denying state rights.
Reply With Quote