What do we need to fear with the new MN Legislature

[infidel]

It's amazing. All the times he complained about examples that don't apply, and here he is rapid-firing them out like a hypocritical machine gun.

Bratatatatatat! Take that, consistency!

You should really be ashamed of yourself in this thread. You LIE. I was asked to provide a link to ANY church that may be forced to provide services against their will. I did. Everything you have said cannot happen, I have shown you it has.

[Holland&Holland]

It's amazing. All the times he complained about examples that don't apply, and here he is rapid-firing them out like a hypocritical machine gun.

Bratatatatatat! Take that, consistency!

You should really be ashamed of yourself in this thread. You LIE. I was asked to provide a link to ANY church that may be forced to provide services against their will. I did. Everything you have said cannot happen, I have shown you it has.

But have you shown any evidence that the catholic church is going to be forced to perform gay marrages in MN if gay marrage is allowed? Or is your what is your point? That other countries suck?

[yukonjasper]

Religion, just like many other things in life, are highly subjective and we each should have the opportunity to believe as they wish. The re-writing of history and the removal of religion from a society steeped in religious traditions and founded on religious ideals is quite another thing. If there is an evolution towards Extreme Secularism, don't expect those who don't share that opinion to go away quietly. Simply saying something is Weird because you don't share the view is not evidence that it is Weird. The case being made for the Morally Relativistic society, devoid of Faith, to me shows the need for an alternative - radical viewpoint. Gasp - what if there is a GOD! Say it ain't so. The original point that was made had to do with how passage of a Gay Rights - Gay Marriage agenda could undermine organized religion. Its not a mystery, it has already happened and is active today. Closing your eyes so as not to see it, is what the majority of Society is doing - all in the name of Political Correctness and so they won't be labled with whatever term ending with -ist fits the bill. Most people don't think that deeply about any of these subjects, which is what allows it to happen.

Could it be seen as a sign of love for another to intercede and dissuade them from a harmful act - or is it a case of hate that you will not allow them to fully exercise their freedom?

If you subscribe to the theory that we are cast into this world as the beasts of the earth to fend for ourselves and answerable to no one I suspect the latter would be true. I myself believe that we are put on this planet to help each other and intercede whenever possible to guide people on a better path. If that person chooses not to follow, so be it. But I shouldn't stop trying just because the last did not follow.

[Heffay]

a society steeped in religious traditions and founded on religious ideals is quite another thing.

I would say that religion is founded on social ideals. It would be far more accurate that way.

And at the end of the day, all I see is you advocating that everyone else live by your religious rules.

[Geezer43]

a society steeped in religious traditions and founded on religious ideals is quite another thing.

I would say that religion is founded on social ideals. It would be far more accurate that way.

And at the end of the day, all I see is you advocating that everyone else live by your religious rules.

As you yourself would say Heffay --- "Your premise is wrong."
But you keep on stirring the pot anyway.

[Holland&Holland]

Religion, just like many other things in life, are highly subjective and we each should have the opportunity to believe as they wish. The re-writing of history and the removal of religion from a society steeped in religious traditions and founded on religious ideals is quite another thing. If there is an evolution towards Extreme Secularism, don't expect those who don't share that opinion to go away quietly. Simply saying something is Weird because you don't share the view is not evidence that it is Weird. The case being made for the Morally Relativistic society, devoid of Faith, to me shows the need for an alternative - radical viewpoint. Gasp - what if there is a GOD! Say it ain't so. The original point that was made had to do with how passage of a Gay Rights - Gay Marriage agenda could undermine organized religion. Its not a mystery, it has already happened and is active today. Closing your eyes so as not to see it, is what the majority of Society is doing - all in the name of Political Correctness and so they won't be labled with whatever term ending with -ist fits the bill. Most people don't think that deeply about any of these subjects, which is what allows it to happen.

Could it be seen as a sign of love for another to intercede and dissuade them from a harmful act - or is it a case of hate that you will not allow them to fully exercise their freedom?

If you subscribe to the theory that we are cast into this world as the beasts of the earth to fend for ourselves and answerable to no one I suspect the latter would be true. I myself believe that we are put on this planet to help each other and intercede whenever possible to guide people on a better path. If that person chooses not to follow, so be it. But I shouldn't stop trying just because the last did not follow.

This is based on the premise that your particular religious beliefs are the correct ones. Sorry, you are wrong and I am right, now you all need to listen to me.

[yukonjasper]

Holland - As you say, the Catholic Church, to date has not been forced to wed gay couples. The point that was made is that in the world of incrementalism and the slow erosion of the influence of faith, it is only a matter of time. The intent of the One Man, One Woman Marriage amendment was to put a line in the sand that would stop the further erosion of the concept of marriage. Granted, the assertion that the Church (Catholic, Jewish or other denomination that does not believe homosexuality is morally correct) is setting out their ideals as "the ideal" is correct. The idea behind putting it to vote is to see if you can get the majority of people to agree with you. Just because you cannot get the majority of people who vote to put a check in the YES box doesn't necessarily mean that society as an entire body is ready for the type of Liberatarian free for all that those who celebrate its defeat would have you believe.

These are my views - other than expressing them here and elsewhere, I don't believe my veiws have any more weight than someone with opposing views. All I ask is that you not allow the government to silence my views - which is what is happening in Canada - for instance.

I am personally concerned that we are living in a society that, in my opinion, is morally adrift. I am not eager to repeat the course of so many other countries who profess religious tolerance and yet the rhetoric and public discourse does not support the Tolerance they claim.

[yukonjasper]

Don't mistake my words as an attempt to argue. You will not sway my opinion any more than I suspect I will sway yours. My only mission here is to provide a viewpoint. If you want to attack it, go ahead, I don't hold grudges nor do I take much personally, so if we have to agree to disagree, I understand. My sole point was that when some of you say that it will never happen, you need to take the blinders off and realize the world has already changed and there are many out there who want it to change even more. Eternal vigilence it the price of freedom.

[Heffay]

Don't mistake my words as an attempt to argue. You will not sway my opinion any more than I suspect I will sway yours. My only mission here is to provide a viewpoint. If you want to attack it, go ahead, I don't hold grudges nor do I take much personally, so if we have to agree to disagree, I understand. My sole point was that when some of you say that it will never happen, you need to take the blinders off and realize the world has already changed and there are many out there who want it to change even more. Eternal vigilence it the price of freedom.

I have no desire to sway your opinion. I don't see why you want to force me to live under your rules though.

[goalie]

It's amazing. All the times he complained about examples that don't apply, and here he is rapid-firing them out like a hypocritical machine gun.

Bratatatatatat! Take that, consistency!

You should really be ashamed of yourself in this thread. You LIE. I was asked to provide a link to ANY church that may be forced to provide services against their will. I did. Everything you have said cannot happen, I have shown you it has.

Um, your link demonstrated the perfect storm needed for it to happen in a country where the monarch (note: we don't have one of those) is the head of the official government religion (note: we don't have one of those either) and the legislative body is also the church's governing body.

Wow, I can see how a guy would be super-duper afraid that it COULD happen here too.

[Jeff Bergquist]

Religion, just like many other things in life, are highly subjective and we each should have the opportunity to believe as they wish. The re-writing of history and the removal of religion from a society steeped in religious traditions and founded on religious ideals is quite another thing.

Is it? So people should be forced to participate in religious rites as long as they aren't forced to believe in them, because that's the American tradition? And this will combat moral drift? IMO all moral drift means (As opposed to outright criminality) is that people aren't living the way you think they should. The only reason that is a problem is that believers in The One True Path get all verklempt over it.

[goalie]

Holland - As you say, the Catholic Church, to date has not been forced to wed gay couples. The point that was made is that in the world of incrementalism and the slow erosion of the influence of faith, it is only a matter of time. The intent of the One Man, One Woman Marriage amendment was to put a line in the sand that would stop the further erosion of the concept of marriage. Granted, the assertion that the Church (Catholic, Jewish or other denomination that does not believe homosexuality is morally correct) is setting out their ideals as "the ideal" is correct. The idea behind putting it to vote is to see if you can get the majority of people to agree with you. Just because you cannot get the majority of people who vote to put a check in the YES box doesn't necessarily mean that society as an entire body is ready for the type of Liberatarian free for all that those who celebrate its defeat would have you believe.

These are my views - other than expressing them here and elsewhere, I don't believe my veiws have any more weight than someone with opposing views. All I ask is that you not allow the government to silence my views - which is what is happening in Canada - for instance.

I am personally concerned that we are living in a society that, in my opinion, is morally adrift. I am not eager to repeat the course of so many other countries who profess religious tolerance and yet the rhetoric and public discourse does not support the Tolerance they claim.

Some people want the catholic church to stay the **** out of their lives. I am one.

Like I said earlier:

I hate to break this to you, but religion IS extreme. All of them. Not just the other weird ones, but yours too. They all rely on this faith thing, and faith in something without rational reason to have said faith is pretty much the definition of extreme.

YOUR religion has no more right to define marriage than islam or the **** moonies or scientologists do.

[Heffay]

Well, why don't we implement sharia law then, if we're concerned about moral drift?

[infidel]

Don't mistake my words as an attempt to argue. You will not sway my opinion any more than I suspect I will sway yours. My only mission here is to provide a viewpoint. If you want to attack it, go ahead, I don't hold grudges nor do I take much personally, so if we have to agree to disagree, I understand. My sole point was that when some of you say that it will never happen, you need to take the blinders off and realize the world has already changed and there are many out there who want it to change even more. Eternal vigilence it the price of freedom.

I have no desire to sway your opinion. I don't see why you want to force me to live under your rules though.

What a hypocrite. No one is forcing you to do anything, yet you want churches to accommodate YOUR whims.

[goalie]

What a hypocrite. No one is forcing you to do anything, yet you want churches to accommodate YOUR whims.

Not even close. Your church can do whatever the **** it wants, and nobody who is pro-marriage for all could GAS. YOU want to force YOUR religious views upon everyone and deny OTHERS the ability to get married.