All Things LGBTQ+ (2 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[MT15]

OK, when it comes to straw men we are even. No one said we want the Church to pass dogma into law.
No problem!

I said the church is trying, I didn’t say you were, I know you said you are fine with a woman‘s right to choose for herself. So no straw man there.

 

[Paul]

I said the church is trying, I didn’t say you were, I know you said you are fine with a woman‘s right to choose for herself. So no straw man there.

One of the basic rights is the ability to petition the government.

 

[MT15]

Quite the circular argument you have going on, lol. I’m done.

 

[Paul]

Quite the circular argument you have going on, lol. I’m done.

Please explain how it is circular to say rights do not cost money.
Thanks!
If I made a mistake I certainly want to learn form it.

 

[MT15]

There’s nothing about rights costing money in your post nor in my response.

You seem to be defending the “right” of the churches to try to have their religious beliefs codified into law in the US by saying a “basic right” is to petition the government. Which would seem to contradict what you say you believe about people having certain “natural rights” and presumably what you believe about separation of church and state, since that is one of the founding principles of our country. I would imagine bodily autonomy to be a top candidate for a natural right, but who knows? You seem to be all over the place, but it does seem circular to me to argue that everyone has natural rights, but it’s fine for a church to seek use the government to legally impose their dogma on people who aren’t members of their church, because that is their right. Those two statements seem to oppose each other.

Then you respond with an unrelated thought about how rights shouldn’t cost anything, which I don’t believe I have ever mentioned.

 

[Paul]

There’s nothing about rights costing money in your post nor in my response.

Do you think basic human rights cost money? Yes or no? Why?

You seem to be defending the “right” of the churches to try to have their religious beliefs codified into law in the US by saying a “basic right” is to petition the government.

Nope, I said individuals or groups have a right to petition. I did not say the religious beliefs should be codified into law.

Which would seem to contradict what you say you believe about people having certain “natural rights” and presumably what you believe about separation of church and state, since that is one of the founding principles of our country.

See above. I believe in separation of state and church.

I would imagine bodily autonomy to be a top candidate for a natural right, but who knows?

As much as you squeeze the constitution there is no right to abortion in the constitution. As I said above I could care less if women abort their kids hence I am pro choice. The issue with abortion is whether the baby in the womb is considered a person or not. If we assume the baby is a person then the freedom to have an abortion (which is different than a right) is troublesome. The left assumes the fetus is not a baby, the right assumes the fetus us a baby.

You seem to be all over the place, but it does seem circular to me to argue that everyone has natural rights, but it’s fine for a church to seek use the government to legally impose their dogma on people who aren’t members of their church, because that is their right. Those two statements seem to oppose each other.

I know it is painful to you, but groups have the right to petition the government. If the petition is granted then the courts can decide if that is constitutional or not.

Amendment I​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Then you respond with an unrelated thought about how rights shouldn’t cost anything, which I don’t believe I have ever mentioned.

I said that because some posters believe health care, housing, food, etc are basic rights.

 

[V Chip]

The Catholic Church played a huge role in Western Civilization. Some good and some bad. There was a time when life was entirely centered on Catholicism and the power of the Church was immense. The kings and royalty of Europe had to bend the knee to the Pope. Just travel to Europe and visit the old town of all major cities and towns. The mark of the Church is palpable. After the destruction of the Western Roman Empire, the church in the West was a major factor in preserving classical civilization, establishing monasteries, and sending missionaries to convert the peoples of northern Europe as far north as Ireland. And let's not forget that at one time the North of Africa was Christian. One of the great early philosophers Saint Augustine was a North African. As you know today the North of Africa is Muslim do to the invasion and conquest by the Islamists.

And? Are you just making a comment (that has little to do with what I stated)?

Besides, life wasn't centered on Catholicism pretty much ever. Sure, some European places were. There's a great big world outside of Europe that for the most part didn't even know about Catholicism.

 

[CoolBrees]

There is no such thing as a natural right.

If you are attributing a right given by a deity, any deity; that is a divine right.

A natural right would be one bestowed by nature and, well, nature isn’t exactly interested in rights.

Your “right” to your voice or speech would summarily be met by the nearest predator’s right to not be hungry when they eat your arse.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I know it is painful to you, but groups have the right to petition the government. If the petition is granted then the courts can decide if that is constitutional or not.

There's a lot to unpack in your post, but I want to highlight this. This is a prime example of you acting like a condescending asshat. Don't do that, especially when multiple posters here (including MT) have shown you a tremendous level of patience in dealing with your often contradictory points, replies that never address the point to which you are responding, repeated arguments full of logical fallacies that you then (incorrectly) accuse others of doing (likely as a way to avoid addressing your fallacious arguments), and numerous other examples of condescending behavior.

So, in short... stop.

 

[MT15]

There's a lot to unpack in your post, but I want to highlight this. This is a prime example of you acting like a condescending asshat. Don't do that, especially when multiple posters here (including MT) have shown you a tremendous level of patience in dealing with your often contradictory points, replies that never address the point to which you are responding, repeated arguments full of logical fallacies that you then (incorrectly) accuse others of doing (likely as a way to avoid addressing your fallacious arguments), and numerous other examples of condescending behavior.

So, in short... stop.

Thank you.

 

[Paul]

There's a lot to unpack in your post, but I want to highlight this. This is a prime example of you acting like a condescending asshat. Don't do that, especially when multiple posters here (including MT) have shown you a tremendous level of patience in dealing with your often contradictory points, replies that never address the point to which you are responding, repeated arguments full of logical fallacies that you then (incorrectly) accuse others of doing (likely as a way to avoid addressing your fallacious arguments), and numerous other examples of condescending behavior.

So, in short... stop.

Other than acrimonious remarks. Do you have an argument?
Ad Hominem is not an argument.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Other than acrimonious remarks. Do you have an argument?
Ad Hominem is not an argument.

That was not an ad hominem attack. I made it clear that I wasn't addressing anything related to your argument. I was only discussing your behavior, which is not good.

 

[Farb]

There's a lot to unpack in your post, but I want to highlight this. This is a prime example of you acting like a condescending asshat. Don't do that, especially when multiple posters here (including MT) have shown you a tremendous level of patience in dealing with your often contradictory points, replies that never address the point to which you are responding, repeated arguments full of logical fallacies that you then (incorrectly) accuse others of doing (likely as a way to avoid addressing your fallacious arguments), and numerous other examples of condescending behavior.

So, in short... stop.

Just so we are clear, this is not 'acting like a condescending asshat'?
If someone debates in way that bothers you or if you feel he is being mean, don't engage. Pretty simple really. There are tons that don't engage me with and many I refused to engage with.

 

[Farb]

In that, we agree.

See, after that long and dizzy dance of working around arguments and focusing on one word or phrase in a paragraph, we have come full circle and we are friends again!

See you in mass next week my friend!

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Just so we are clear, this is not 'acting like a condescending asshat'?
If someone debates in way that bothers you or if you feel he is being mean, don't engage. Pretty simple really. There are tons that don't engage me with and many I refused to engage with.

No, it wasn't. He was being a dick to one of the best posters on this board, which he does on a regular basis. I was quite polite, given the circumstances.

 

[brandon]

Other than acrimonious remarks.

Careful, @cuddlemonkey. "Acrimonious" is the warning shot before he puts you on ignore.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Careful, @cuddlemonkey. "Acrimonious" is the warning shot before he puts you on ignore.

I feel the chill up my spine as I type this. lol

 

[Farb]

Are we not mature enough to realize that we are all condescending to a degree on this message board? I know personally, I am not a mature person in the slightest, but I can understand this.