TOLERANCE VERSUS AFFIRMATION

Since I mentioned the difference between tolerance and affirmation, I got the following comment on my last post, CHAOS COMING TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.

“Democrats define “tolerance” as affirmation. Even when they sin, the people must approve of their sins.”

I prefer the dictionary definition of tolerance: “the capacity to endure continued subjection to something…without adverse reaction.” In other words, tolerance is used when something unwanted is forced upon us, like we tolerate a toothache until we can go to the dentist, or tolerate a little brother until he grows up.

Acceptance (or affirmation as you use it) is a COMPLETELY different kettle of fish. One either tolerates or one accepts; there literally isn’t a middle ground.

Since nothing else in your post seems to have anything to do with the difference between tolerance and acceptance, I’ll offer one really good example:

Gay marriage: Acceptance is celebrating the fact that everyone can benefit from being legally married. Tolerance is not fighting against laws that make it legal while silently fuming against the death of “traditional” marriage. Intolerance is actively fighting against the expansion of marriage as though gay marriages somehow take something away from heterosexual marriages.

  • @Catherine

    Judges literally invented the “right” of same-sex marriage. That “right” didn’t exist because same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Your example, “gay marriage,” is exactly what I suggested in my post. Instead of just putting up with their neighbor’s right to make a fool of himself, you want the government to force everyone to affirm same-sex sex as righteous through legal marriage.

    Imagine some guy thinks the sun come out at night. Just to make this guy happy, does everyone else have to pretend the sun comes out at night? That is sort of nonsense you are demanding with same-sex marriage. Just because the harm is subtle doesn’t mean it does not exist.

    Note we do play with the clock. So we have just made a one-hour shift. Why stop there? If we can “save” one hour, why not two? Why not twelve?

Being tolerant of something we do not like is painful. The tolerant and the tolerated must usually endure an unpleasant relationship. Imagine enduring stares and the nonverbal signals from someone who you know disapproves of you. That can become like enduring an obnoxious stench. We want it to go away, but it just won’t. All we can do is endure, separate ourselves from whatever it is that reeks, or destroy the source of the stench.

Affirming something we don’t like, however, is far worse. That demands hypocrisy from us. That demands a lie. Whereas tolerance just requires perseverance, if we are forced by those in authority to affirm something we know is wrong or untrue, we have to sell a bit of our soul to the devil or pay the price of being true to our beliefs.

Because it has nothing to do with procreation, there is no reason to expect two people of the same sex to form a long-term, stable sexual relationship. That’s not the way we were designed. When two people of the opposite sex come together and have sex, however, there is at least the possibility of having a child. Raising a child requires a serious commitment. The Bible uses the depth of that commitment, marriage, to model the relationship God expects us to have with Him. Because it is just a hypocritical pretense designed to hide a sin, same-sex “marriage” makes a joke out of marriage; it belittles that which we should hold sacred.

What happens when a society insist that people affirm truths they rightly should only be required to tolerate? Such societies must approve — affirm — liars.

 

74 thoughts on “TOLERANCE VERSUS AFFIRMATION

  1. I’m going to expose my libertarian proclivities here. “Legal marriage” only serves legal purposes. If there were not separate tax rules, health insurance plans, wills/trusts, retirement benefits, etc. for married vs. unmarried people, then there would be no reason for “legal marriage” to exist.

    Why not eliminate all these rules? Legal marriage, and all the bespoke rules that go with it, were created as a form of government control. Why not just have everyone function as an independent person? If someone wants to assign benefits (say, health insurance or social security) to a Significant Other, then all they need to do is sign the forms.

    Legal Marriage as it is known today has not been around very long. Back in the day, you would be married through your church, and if you didn’t have a church, you simply lived in a Common Law marriage. There was no reason for the government to be involved until the government created a system where it’s required to be in their “approved” version of marriage to receive certain rights & benefits. And by the way, a “right” isn’t really a right if it can simply be regulated away.

    Marriage should go back to being a private affair, and although conservatives may still not like it, most of their misgivings regarding same-sex marriages, would be moot.

    Like

    1. Chris,

      You point out the classic ideological inconsistency of the Religious Right when they wish to be positively Darwinian in their government-free libertarianism on economic issues and positively Puritan in their invoking the need for government enforcement of moral values. Here’s the rub.

      Libertarians generally believe in the freedom to contract. You can contract with someone to provide you with a good or service with just a handshake, and maybe government never gets involved. However, what happens if you have a dispute?

      You could fight it out I suppose, but long ago we decided that that sort of system wasn’t very conducive to public peace and stable market certainty.

      So now instead we have the state to define, arbitrate and enforce contract rights and responsibilities at law. And because of a 1000 year old history of common and codified law on the books, a great deal is implied by your handshake without the need of it actually being said.

      Given this, and for reasons of social necessity that should be obvious to you, in very few areas of the law are these implied legal rights and responsibilities more prevalent than when we obligate ourselves at law to the marriage contract.

      These implied rights and responsibilities may be totally different and more voluntary in a religious sense, and part of the problem here is separating marriage in the religious sense (which the state cannot and should not enforce) and in the purely legal sense, where the state is obligated to be religiously neutral. In simplistic terms, gays are basically asking for the freedom to make the same “legal” marriage contract as heterosexuals and to have the same body of implied contractual rights and responsibilities applied at law.

      So as a strictly “freedom of contract” issue, the consistent libertarian ideological position should be for that freedom. I’m not a big believer in the determinative possibility of any ideological system, but that is another discussion.

      Like

      1. @tsalmon

        Pigshit! Homosexuals are claiming the right to pressure others to participate in their sick fantasies.

        Almost no one is stopping consenting, adult homosexuals from doing whatever it is they want to do in the bedroom. It is affirming same sex relationships that people want no part of.

        This affirmation is the issue you keep dodging, and that’s dishonest. You act like legal issues don’t involve moral issues. That’s as dumb and dishonest as saying we don’t outlaw murder for moral reasons.

        What if a bunch of Satan worshipers decide to bring back human sacrifice? Are you going to let them do it because current law violates their religious rights? If the sacrifice is a volunteer, what would be wrong with it?

        Like

        1. So “pig shit” is now the new “listen to yourself”? 😁

          I’m not avoiding anything. Like I said, this is a conflict of competing rights and responsibilities that necessarily requires imperfect balancing. If you give me an example of where someone is being forced to become gay married, then I’m on your side. If you give me an example where the right to religious practice is being balanced unjustly against someone else’s fundamental right or against a legitimate state interest that is not very substantial, then I’m also on your side. It is in that continuum between competing rights that our courts often have to, albeit imperfectly, have to settle disputes.

          You’ll have to give me a less over-the-top example than human sacrifice, however. As far as I know, the lobby for human sacrifice is small to nonexistent, but if their is one, it’s probably a religious one.😏

          Like

          1. @tsalmon

            A less over-the-top example than human sacrifice? Like same sex “marriage.”

            We already have about a million a abortions a year, and Democrats are pushing for infanticide. Euthanasia is taking off. All I did is suggest a scenario where the killing has the overt religious significance we usually associate with death cults.

            Actually, abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide only appear secular, but that is because “me” worship is not an organized religion with a tax deduction for donors. But don’t worry. There is a “legitimate” state interest in all these killings. Got to make certain welfare funds are spent on people who vote.

            Like

          2. Do you honestly think that the legalization of same sex marriage equates in harm to the legalization of human sacrifice? Forgive me if I find that hard to believe.

            You seems to have a libertarian pragmatism about legalizing even more harmfully selfish contracting that consenting adults may voluntarily try. One would think that you would be capable of doing some actual weighing and balancing of when the supposed harm is self inflicted on consenting adults and when we are trying to protect our own rights or the rights of innocents. Using your favorite school yard ad hominem, absent protecting the rights of innocent, isn’t interference in this right of consenting adults to voluntarily contract (even assuming it’s selfish) just being a “busybody”? When I ask for an example on this issue consistent with your libertarian principles elsewhere, the best analogy you can come up with is human sacrifice and infanticide? Really?

            There are actual cases and controversies out there. The Washington State one with the Christian florist, I’ll admit, I am particularly conflicted about. Often the Left can be just as bad as the Right in the self righteous inflicting of absolutist and uncompromising values. This self righteous “winner take all” attitude on both sides seems to be what’s destroying our country right now.

            Like

          3. @tsalmon

            You used the phrase “over the top.” Now you switch to “harm,” and you ignore half of what I said. What are you, a member of the so-called mainstream news media?

            You already know the examples. To make yourself seem reasonable to yourself, you just gave one.

            When we behave evilly, we engage in willful ignorance. We choose to ignore what we know to be true.

            Homosexuals have a problem. They want something out of sex it cannot provide. To gain what sex does provide they ignore the harm. When we refuse to pity the sinner and approve of the sin, we just enable self destructive behavior.

            Am I an expert on homosexuality? No. I just believe the Bible and choose not to be willfully ignorant.

            Like

          4. Tom,

            You’ll have to explain to me what that confusing word salad means. The reason why your examples are over-the-top is because they don’t weigh disparate differences in harm. What does the main stream media have to do with anything? Why wouldn’t any sane person try to be reasonable with himself? Do we have to think everyone who honestly disagrees with us on God’s own truth is just “willfully ignorant” or is that just an excuse to be willfully ignorant of our own ignorance? 🙃

            Like

          5. @tsalmon

            Do we have to think everyone who honestly disagrees with us on God’s own truth is just “willfully ignorant” or is that just an excuse to be willfully ignorant of our own ignorance?

            When you start using the government to solve problems, isn’t that exactly what you are doing? Aren’t you going to punish anyone who does not comply with your beliefs?

            Like

    2. @Chris

      I am inclined towards making government and the tax code as simple as possible, but the government has to protect children and parental rights. Historically, we begin defining what constitutes a family by defining marriage. I don’t think what you proposed gets around that problem.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. “Legal marriage” only serves legal purposes. If there were not separate tax rules, health insurance plans, wills/trusts, retirement benefits, etc. for married vs. unmarried people, then there would be no reason for “legal marriage” to exist.

      I believe that the pro homosexual marriage intended end game is and was to eliminate marriage as de facto social contract. Because there are (and were) plenty of avenues for civil unions if the only intent was to bond in a legal contract. The above is a very common bromide now…just get rid of marriage all together (as a legal construct)!

      Marriage is a public “contract” because it does more than bind two individuals to each other, it also places specific obligations and restrictions upon the public at large. These are “costs” to the public. Heterosexual marriage clearly meets this test, as the large social costs we are incurring from both the breakdown of traditional marriages and the non-formation of marriages demonstrate. Virtually all of the breakdown costs are centered on children, as are almost all of the social benefits.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @Liz

        Well put!

        With respect to marriage, children don’t seem to be important to Liberal Democrats. These are the same people, oddly enough, who are always telling us “it’s for the children.” Yet these same people have launched a full scale assault on marriage and stable families.

        Like

  2. Philip Augustine,

    In our Democratic Republic, if you tried to explain the marriage rules you explained to the Supreme Court, they would say something to the effect that freedom of religion allows you to follow any religious belief or rules you choose.

    If you explained them to a gay, they would accuse you of being a bigot.

    If you explained them to a politician, thy would accuse you of being a Catholic.

    If you explained them to Catholic who went to a public school, they would just look at you with a blank stare.

    However, if you asked the Supreme Court to define the word religion, they would also look at you with a blind stare because they have never defined the difference between religion or a political entity that claims they are a religion.

    What’s My Point?

    It seems to me that one reason people are losing belief in marriage is religion has never been defined by the Supreme Court. For example, some Muslims actually believe it is a religious duty to kill someone who is not a Muslim.

    To complicate matters, the Supreme Court has changed the meaning of marriage to include same sexes instead if a man and a woman.

    Is it any wonder, young people in our Nation are becoming confused about marriage, or religion in our Democratic Republic?

    Regards and good will blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Phillip Augustine

        A lot of people have been victimized by people proclaiming a false love to their victims. For example, sinful lust.

        I like the idiom, “Love is never having to say you are sorry.”

        True love is holy, not sinful, in my opinion.

        Regards and good will blogging.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Sometimes logic, reason, history, culture, tradition and even evidence is futile, when you are dealing with a visceral emotion which actually hijacks all your other human facilities. I am referring to LUST. I wrote a blog post last year called “Lust Rules the World.” Whether it’s homosexual “marriage”, or any other of the myriad LGBTQ+++++ “issues”, lust justifies it’s children.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Tom,

    Both tolerance and affirmation are necessary to coalesce in the USA Democratic Republic.

    However, without wisdom, coalesce probably will always be the impossible dream as evidenced by history.

    In my opinion, it is impossible to understand gay choice unless a person is, or becomes gay.

    The only redeeming message is if you live in the Democratic Republic, and understand spiritual wisdom, no one will force you to affirm in speech anything you cannot tolerate.

    As for any meaning of the word marriage in the Democratic Republic, if changing the meaning helps people to coalesce in the Democratic Republic, no one will force you to affirm in speech anything you cannot tolerate.

    Same as for religious choice in the Democratic Republic, no one can force anyone to affirm in speech anything you cannot tolerate.

    The problem in the Democratic Republic in relation to gay is if the government is teaching in schools that gay is 100 percent nature and not nurture when that is not one hundred percent a proven truth, in my opinion.

    Until everyone wises up to the truth how nature or nurture can result in gay choice, there will never be either tolerance or affirmation that leads to coalesce the issue in the Democratic Republic or any form of government, in my opinion.

    Regards and good will blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think that you have nailed it SW. The big bugaboo against the general acceptance of homosexuality is the fear that it will somehow gay out their children. I’m not enough of an expert to say how much that is even possible. However, as issues go, I’m pretty ambivalent about the prospect. (I’m more concerned about what it teaches our children to have a POTUS who promotes nearly ever vice as if it were a virtue). It seems to me that, whether in private or in public school, if we returned to an emphasis on the simple unselfish virtues that bind us together, then minor issues about who is to love who will take care of themselves.

      It also seems to me that this focus on sex, sex, sex by both sides of this argument is equally corrupting. It bothers me not that my grandkids are taught by an openly gay teacher as long as that person teaches basic honor and integrity. If a loving commitment between two people of the same sex really is a vice in the eyes of God, then can it really be high on this His list? Maybe somewhere far, far down from genocide and kleptocracy? If you take our sexual taboos completely out of the equation, then would anyone really care?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “If a loving commitment between two people of the same sex really is a vice in the eyes of God, then can it really be high on this His list?”

        God doesn’t have a problem with a loving commitment between two people of the same sex. Loving commitments to other people are openly encouraged throughout scripture. Sexual behavior, however, has strict guidelines.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. That’s refreshingly honest John. What sex is immoral is indeed a matter of religious opinion. Establishing a ban on a fundamental right such as marriage based upon a religious opinion, even if it were held by the majority, violates the Establishment Clause.

          Like

          1. @tsalmon

            PIGSHIT!

            Here is the logic flow.
            1. Someone writes a law, and the people approve of it.
            2. The elites decide the law needs to change.
            3. The elites say the law means something it does not say.
            4. Judges approve the elites new interpretation.

            Then the people look at the law and wonder what happened? If the people had not let the government educate their children, more of them would have read ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell. They would know the pigs had changed the law.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. John,

            The Supreme Court some time ago found and affirmed marriage to be a fundamental right in cases like Loving verses Virginia. The 1st Amendment has two, sometimes conflicting, clauses – one prevents state establishment of religion and the other does not allow the state to prevent the free exercise of religion. For example, if the state said marriage can only be defined by this religious denomination, then it would be violating the establishment clause. On the other hand, if a state were to make a given denomination perform gay marriages in their church, that state may be infringing upon the free exercise clause. The federal courts get involved through the 14th Amendment.

            Like

      2. Tsalmon
        You stated, “If you take our sexual taboos completely out of the equation, then would anyone really care?”

        In reality, we cannot ignore sexual taboos if we are concerned about our children because we know how impressionable a child can be to influences. There is also the fact that there is a 1 in 1500 risk factor than a child can be born with male and female genitals adds to the mystery of nature or nurture.

        As for me personally, I try to equate everything in life I cannot understand with King Solomon’s two qualifiers, wise of foolish and fear as a both the beginning of wisdom and a motivation not to make unnecessary risky foolish choices in my lifetime.

        Since I cannot understand if gay is 100 percent nature and not nurture, I wonder then if it is a nurtured choice, of the possibility that they can be influenced to engage in homosexual acts. Since all vice pleasures such as sex, alcohol, drugs, etc. one experienced can become addictive.

        If a person is not gay and chooses to become gay, there are numerous medical risks he is choosing by engaging in a sexual practice that can affect their life, even reduce their lifespan.

        Ancient wisdom is a person who manages to live a long life, was considered wise just to achieve old age graybeard or hair. Therefore, it is not wise.

        Another factor for someone with religious beliefs to consider, is if God has a reason or purpose for homosexuality, why is it that homosexual engagements have a risk of obtain numerous health problems, some diseases such as HIV/AIDS can be fatal and is now medically proven to reduce lifespan by up to twenty years even with the discovery of modern medications to control the spread.

        Some may counter that God also allows others both good or bad to be inflicted with diseases.

        However, it is not by a person knowingly choosing to take a risk by engaging in a sex act with a medically proven know cause.

        There is medical proof how to prevent numerous health risks of homosexuality if a person chooses to not engage in sex without taking preventative measures. In other words, if a person today becomes infected, they are a fool or uniformed which is hard to believe unless a uniformed impressionable child is involved.

        Why this simple fact is very seldom brought up in Hollywood or the news media, amazes me.

        My advice is to tell children the truth about the risks of engaging in homosexual acts, using love and fear motivations.

        As for Tom’s question of tolerance not being affirmation, I stated in our Democratic Republic, we can be tolerant and wary, but no one can ever force us to affirm someone else’s choices.

        Until we know for certain the answer of nature or nurture, there is nothing wrong being wary for the sake of our children.

        As for having a gay teacher, children are impressionable and somehow, we all must coalesce in a Democratic Republic.

        In my youth, gays were made fun of, and even beaten up by bullies. No one deserves that treatment if they were born gay in my opinion.

        King Solomon gave up trying to understand all the mysteries of life and concluded his advice to Obey God’s Commandments, and enjoy life each day enjoying the blessing of God.

        If my explanation is wise or foolish in regards to nature or nurture, or sounds bigoted, or perhaps wary of choices and risks we encounter in life, it is my choice to make thankfully because I live in a Democratic Republic..

        Regards and good will blogging.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I’m no expert on epidemiology or whether the preferred sexual practices of monogamous male and female homosexuals is more or less likely to be riskier than the preferred sexual practices in similar heterosexual relationships. However, if you believe it is riskier as you say, then YOU would indeed be wise not to get married to someone of the same sex. I know of no law that forces you to do so. Life is risk though. Should you have the right to ban other consenting adults from taking their own risks?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. @tsalmon

            The AIDS epidemic provides a classic example of people rewriting history. In the USA AIDS was a gay disease. Sodomy, a ridiculously unhealthy practice, and multiple sex partners made it so.

            The news media took the side of the homosexuals and tried to hide who was spreading the disease, but at the time everyone knew the Federal Government invested billions in AIDS research because homosexuals were dying in droves.

            Do you remember the AIDS Quilt? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470617/
            It is no accident that a San Francisco, Calif, gay activist started it.

            What was the general attitude? Without knowing more about the disease, there was no practical way to stop homosexuals from spreading AIDS. Since the disease progressed slowly, quarantine was not a good option. Still, infected homosexuals kept having sex and spreading the disease. So some kind of cure was sought.

            No one seriously objected to the research for two reasons.
            1. The disease would not stay in the homosexual community. Unfortunately, not all heterosexuals practice strict monogamy. People were getting infected by blood transfusions. Drug addicts share needles……
            2. Most people don’t hate homosexuals. It’s their fixation on stupid sex that’s the problem.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Tsalmon

            Your question is a profound controversy on the subject of equity, fairness, and justice that our Democratic Republic is now experiencing as a result of a societal change from the original Constitution to a society that embraced a progressive agenda that is not heading toward a socialism agenda.

            You asked, “Should you have the right to ban other consenting adults from taking their own risks?”

            The problem of equity surfaces when people decide to take risks and then require others to pay for the sad results of foolish choices.

            For example, should people be allowed to engage in risky choices such as HIV/AIDs, alcoholism, drug addiction, then when they get sick, make others pay for their health costs which result.

            Is that equitable for people who have to pay the costs? For example, Obamacare mandated that everyone is eligible for total health care costs some which are the result of foolish choices. The result is higher taxation and medical payments, deductions, for everyone else.
            In a capitalist private health care insurance,

            if you are a drug addict you either have to pay higher premiums for the foolish choices you made. In Obamacare, there are no equitable incentives to not engage in drug addiction, or any other folly.

            So do the people who wind up having to pay the costs. Also have the right to ban other consenting adults from taking their own risks?

            Equitable when 50 percent only pay 3 percent of Federal Taxes and the other 50 percent pay 97 percent?

            You tell me. I do not think it is a wise path and will in time result in even worse class divisiveness in our nation,,

            If interested, read two recent previous post on fair and equitable taxation.

            https://rudymartinka.com/2019/04/04/king-solomon-congress-applauds-equal-taxes/

            https://rudymartinka.com/2019/04/04/king-solomon-congress-applauds-equal-taxes/

            Regards and good will blogging.

            Like

          3. Tom,

            Unlike you, I don’t claim any expertise on homosexual sex or the epidemiology of STDs. This, however, seems like a red herring to me.

            Logic would tell me that unprotected sexual promiscuity is the problem, and that less promiscuity and mire monogamy in both heterosexual and homosexual partners is one solution. Besides if STD risk is your best argument, then lesbian sex seems the least risky and so should be encouraged?

            I’m just an old straight guy who has been faithful to the same woman for 39 years. Like I said, I’m no expert on such things, nor do I think I want to be. It appears to have little to do with the issue of gay marriage, and everything to do with judging and condemning gays with a yardstick arbitrarily different from straights just to rationalize our outdated sexual taboos. I only hope that God grants me more mercy than the self righteous judgement our society invoked to ignore the deaths of so many people, straight and gay, during the height of the aids epidemic.

            Like

  5. Good definitions there Tom on the differences between tolerance and acceptance. Some may think them small but they really do explain a lot of what is going on.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Ok, let’s say that, as a Catholic, I don’t think that you are actually married unless that sacrament is performed by an ordained Catholic Priest in a Catholic Church. Let’s say that you and your prospective spouse are 50, and that I also believe that children are the only reason for marriage and that cohabitation without the possibility of procreation is an abomination before God. Let’s say that America happens and the law recognizes, not only marriages by other religions, but also civil marriages and even common law marriages. Let’s say we have these strange conflicting clauses in our Constitution that neither allows the State to establish any religion nor to infringe on the free exercise of any religion. Let’s say that, notwithstanding these clauses, the State can afford any other right that is not specifically preempted by the Constitution. Let’s say you get married to your spouse in a Protestant service. Let’s also say that we live in a predominantly Catholic town in a predominantly Catholic State.

    1. If I own a hotel, should I be allowed to make you stay in separate rooms on your honeymoon night based on my religious belief that you are not really married?
    2. If I am the Clerk of Court, should I be able to refuse to issue you a marriage license based upon my religious belief that your Protestant service is not a traditional marriage, unnatural and invalid?
    3. Should people be allowed to refuse to rent to you or sell you a house together, let you buy and own property together, not allow you to see your spouse in the hospital when very sick, keep you from automatically inheriting with spousal privileges, and all the other rights and responsibilities that are implied by the marriage contract, all solely based upon our town’s religious discrimination?
    4. When should such religious discrimination be illegal and when is it just immoral?
    5. When does every action or inaction breach this hazy gap between forcing my religious affirmation and requiring just my openly painful toleration if your sinfulness? When do I just get to constantly, publicly shame you?
    6. Who am I to judge?

    I know. It’s a long hypocritical, and I don’t really expect anyone to answer all the questions. I don’t even know how I’d answer them. It’s just food for thought.

    Like

    1. Your analogy doesn’t work because it doesn’t have the proper understanding of marriage within Catholic Theology and Canon Law. Dealing with these issues within RCIA, two baptized Christians married in a Protestant tradition can have a valid sacramental marriage. Later on, if the couple decided to become Catholic, It would be decided by the Church in a tribunal and be “convalidated.” However, a marriage between two Lutherans is acknowledged by the Catholic Church as a supernatural marriage between two baptized Christians different from what is known as a natural marriage between Jews or Muslims for example. It gets a bit hazy when it’s a mixed marriage between Catholic and protestant because the Catholic is under ecclesial law which would either validate or invalidate the marriage.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Yes, Philip, I realize that it is not a perfect analogy, unless one were living in France or Rome in the 16th Century, but it was meant less as an analogy and more as a hypothetical to spark some mutual understanding, something that seems in short supply in these days of polarizing dogmatism on every issue.

        My wife and I were married in the Presbyterian Church first almost 39 years ago, and a few years later was remarried in the Catholic Church after my wife converted to Catholicism. Our two children were baptized at the same time. I remember our late Mother turning to me after the ceremony and saying, “Now you’re really married”. I laughed, but in her own Catholic way, I think she was quite serious.

        That memory provoked my hypothesis, but I could have used the legalization of slavery, interracial marriage or polygamy as well.

        When a strongly held religious belief conflicts with other rights, the best that the law often does is try to imperfectly balance these conflicting rights. Our intransigence on either side of these debates that these conflicts have black and white moral and legal resolutions isn’t really demonstrating much wisdom or compassion, but instead just the vanity of our own arrogance.

        At least in my own arrogance, that’s how it seems to me.

        Like

        1. @tsalmon

          There is a moral issue, but there is also a practical problem, making people do what they don’t want to do.

          The Democratic Party is still the party of slavery. They are still obsessed with making other people do what they don’t want to do.

          Think about what you are complaining about, making people work for people they don’t want to support.

          Cooking. Housing. Cleaning. Craft work. Would you want a lawyer working for you who thinks badly of you? Then why would you want to eat food cooked by someone who wants no part of you? Is it because your ego demands it? Stupid!

          Slavery never works well. It takes too much effort to make slaves work, but busybodies do like the thrill of bossing other people about.

          We have the right of free association, to be with people who want to be with us. Yet Democrats want to outlaw any form of discrimination. That’s claptrap. To learn how to love the people we don’t like, we need to practice with the people we do like.

          Like

          1. So ending slavery and then segregation in the South was the equivalent of enslavement of the white folks there because the law involuntary made them get along with their black neighbors? Don’t you realize that the law, the sociology and economics of human motivation and interaction are far more nuanced than that Tom?Why does everything have to be either freedom or slavery? Messiah or Satan?

            One of the main things that lawyers learn is to be able to represent either side of an argument. And when a lawyer advocates for a given side she must be able to anticipate and distinguish the arguments of the opposing side. It is literally unethical to make a one sided case that knowingly ignores and does not provide the court with controlling law or precedent that goes against your case. Why do you think that is?

            In the balancing of rights and responsibilities courts require that the law and the facts govern these cases and controversies.

            Gay advocates don’t think their quest for mere dignity makes them Hitler any more than MLK thought he was Hitler. Even a religiously disinterested party would not see it that way. This argument is particularly one of differences in religious dogma. Therefor religious freedom is clearly conflicting with other fundamental liberties. The rights and responsibilities that the law requires that we afford one another are only divided into perfect black and white dichotomies by people who color blind themselves by their own hatreds and their refusal to love with compassion and empathy.

            Like

          2. @tsalmon

            So that’s why Democrats brought blacks to America packed like sardines in slave ships? What wonderful intentions! They just wanted to make certain their white neighbors learned how to get along with blacks.

            Don’t you realize that the law, the sociology and economics of human motivation and interaction are far more nuanced than that Tom? Why does everything have to be either freedom or slavery? Messiah or Satan?

            Government does not exist to make us love or care about each other. BECAUSE sociology and economics of human motivation and interaction are so complex, government doesn’t have the capability to MAKE us love and care about each other. Government is blunt force. There is nothing nuanced about it. Government is Caesar crucifying the rebels, not love and kindness.

            Are there exceptions? Yes, but that only happens when people impose their values upon their rulers, not each other. When those who rule impose their values upon the people, we start seeing lots of crucifixions.

            Slavery was a product of government. The elites wanted cheap labor. So they imported slaves and used the power of government to maintain their control over their slaves. They used racism to justify themselves.

            Today’s Democrats want both cheap votes and cheap labor. So they tar their opponents as intolerant racists. They still use racism. They have just expanded their repertoire. We call it identity politics. Instead of controlling slaves, the object is to silence opposition and control the government. Nothing nuanced about it.

            Like

          3. “So that’s why Democrats brought blacks to America packed like sardines in slave ships?”

            Sure..and the government of Italy is the same as the one that crucified Christ? Thousands of years of history in the progressive evolution of the modern democratic state never happened? The American Constitution never happened? The Civil War and post Civil War Amendments never happened? The Civil Rights laws never happened? Slavery proceeded the both modern day Parties, but the modern day Democratic Party is alone to bear that guilt forever, as if all that history never happened? Why not just say that we are exactly the same country that legalized slavery to begin with and just destroy our government and all the legal progress that we have had since? Do you even realize how ignorant of our transformational history this argument is? Don’t you even imagine that it is the definition of demagoguery?

            Governments legalize enslavement and governments also protect rights by legally defining, arbitrating and enforcing them at law. Totalitarian government is a simple blunt instrument. The historical evolution and systemics of the institutions of justice in what we call the modern democratic state is amazingly nuanced, dynamically continuing and influenced by thousands of often competing vectors of influence in a complex multifarious web. I know that it makes us feel better to see government, political parties, even people in simple machanean terms of good and evil, but that is not the World God allowed us to fall into.

            Our religion simply does not give us the excuse to ignore the nuance, the complexity or the ambiguity of humanity and human existence. God does not want us to be babies, having only some childish view of justice. God commands us to love with an open heart, not a closed mind.

            For a thought experiment, imagine that you are a libertarian minded agnostic again. Absent your current religious dogmas about this issue, what honest arguments would you make in favor of gay marriage? Remember that, notwithstanding federal rights, the Constitution allows the states to create rights not found in the Constitution, and there is also the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

            If you can actually honestly hold for a moment these opposing viewpoints in your mind at the same time, then you will begin to see that these questions of justice require the state to balance many conflicting rights and responsibilities, and absent an. albeit strongly held religious belief, the balancing is weighted toward gay marriage rights. Because religion is involved, however, under our 1st Amendment, the state can neither extablish the anti-gay religious point of view, nor can it infringe upon its free exercise.

            Like

          4. @tsalmon

            Listen to yourself. You prat on and on about the glories of government. You refuse to address the need for what you want, the right to do what you want, exactly what you want, or even whether what you want will work. Since you would not dare to,place limits on your idol, it isn’t even clear what you think government exists to do. Instead, you paint this glorious, nonsensical picture of the progressive evolution of wonderful Big government balancing angels on the head of a pin. Your enemies are just ignorant bigots who don’t understand the so-called nuances and hate glorious, caring government. Yeah, H. Clinton is so wise. We should be letting her decide all those complicated and nuanced moral issues for us. If everyone doesn’t think and believe the same things, that’s the hateful sin.

            What I find hateful is someone who uses a sledge hammer when a tweezers works much better to remove a splinter.

            There is nothing inevitable about good government. History is rife with examples of dangerous authoritarian and totalitarian states. Even today most of the world is ruled by such governments, and there is no reason to believe our government could not become authoritarian. In fact, if H. Clinton had been elected, we would be a lot closer to tyranny than we are now.

            Like

          5. “Listen to yourself”.

            You use this preface often. It appears to be your favorite rhetorical device to imply that someone is not reading what they wrote, and that you somehow actually have. And yet you most often launch this linguistic ploy right before you either ignore, mischaracterize, or just plain make stuff up about what that person actually wrote. Then you fail to respond to what actually was written, but instead respond to an argument that you wish had been made because you apparently find that imaginary argument easier to rebut.😁

            How about we just agree that you actually read what I wrote and I will read what you wrote. If we don’t actually have a response, wouldn’t the more honest response be to just just say so?

            Oh well, it’s your blog so I guess you have the right to be as intellectually honest or not as you deem proper. I imagine it’s not an easy thing to balance is it?🤓

            Like

          6. @tsalmon

            Americans are fond of saying “it’s a free country.” In a “free country,” someone can set up a business and run it the way they want to run it. What you are advocating is a country where people will say, ” the busybodies shut me down.” There is nothing you have written that justifies the busybodies. If people don’t like the way someone operates their business, they don’t have to go there.

            Like

          7. Ok, fair enough. Let me respond with an agreement in principle to what you are saying (even if is a bit cliche ridden).

            Like you, I chafe at the extreme liberal position that every social problem has a government answer. But I also find ludicrous the extreme conservative position that government has no place at all in resolving any problem. I’ll grant that you don’t hold the latter position, and I can only request that you quit trying to paint me as the former.

            As you know, I practiced Family Law for a few years about two decades ago. If you really want to get frustrated enough to want to give up on the whole concept of government, then go spend a day sitting around the human zoo that is the institution of the Domestic Law Courts in Birmingham, AL. Family law is so specialized, so complex, so local and so socially critical that it can get a lawyer disbarred if he even tries to give legal advice on it in a state where he is not licensed. The law itself is a mix of centuries of state appellate holdings and codified laws, rules and graphs. The courts are endlessly crowded and backlogged. It often appears that the only ones actually benefitting from this bureaucratic nightmare are the lawyers. To say that there is constant need for reform and improvements is an understatement. On the other hand, how much worse would it be if the government were not involved at all?

            Whether we like it or not, either by it’s involvement or by its noninvolvement, institutional government has a dramatic effect on the rights and responsibilities that make up the social fabric of communities, states and the country. To say that marriage law has not changed dramatically as a result of changes in culture, economics and social mores is to ignore the obvious. Gay marriage is just the most recent and dramatic change. You want to put that gene back in the bottle? Good luck!

            The issue is not whether gays should be allowed to marry – that ship has sailed. Courts have negated every non- fallacious argument against gay marriage as peculiarly religious in nature. I think they are right.

            Now what we are dealing with are issues of conflicts of rights between the fundamental freedom to marry and our fundamental religious freedoms. Under American Rule of Law, these are case specific, complex balancing decisions. You want to pretend it’s as easy as one side calling the other “busy bodies”? Ya sure, and do you also think that judges should be actually moved by the school yard argument? Well, then Trump is definitely your man…until the Democratic version of Trump wins over the emotions of the mob.

            Like

          8. @tsalmon

            Sophistry. Pure sophistry. When you can’t even deal the fact that two people of the same sex cannot get married, I suppose it is stupid to expect logic. This statement is just dumb.

            The issue is not whether gays should be allowed to marry – that ship has sailed. Courts have negated every non- fallacious argument against gay marriage as peculiarly religious in nature. I think they are right.

            All the court did was say the Constitution gives people right to force people to participate in their fantasies. In so doing they lied about the Constitution and the definition of marriage. That can’t be changed? Why not? The only principles of jurisprudence that decision rests upon is that even supposedly respected judges lie.

            Like

          9. @tsalmon

            Hit the “send” too soon.

            Like you, I chafe at the extreme liberal position that every social problem has a government answer. But I also find ludicrous the extreme conservative position that government has no place at all in resolving any problem. I’ll grant that you don’t hold the latter position, and I can only request that you quit trying to paint me as the former.

            The reason Conservatives have so little use for government problem solving is that government is so easily corrupted. Because so many people don’t believe in any fixed principles, nothing is ever decided. Because so many people believe God does not hate evil, they will not take a stand for good.

            When it is not to be found there, what is the point in expecting wisdom from government. When it is bound to be more trouble than it is worth, what is to be gained by giving government responsibility for solving problems we the people can solve on our own? How you answer that question is what makes you a Liberal Democrat.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. “Sophistry. Pure sophistry. When you can’t even deal the fact that two people of the same sex cannot get married, I suppose it is stupid to expect logic. This statement is just dumb.”

            Sophistry is the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving. Your fallacious argument is that same sex marriage can’t happen. My argument is simply reality – in every legal way, it is happening every day.

            “When it is not to be found there, what is the point in expecting wisdom from government. When it is bound to be more trouble than it is worth, what is to be gained by giving government responsibility for solving problems we the people can solve on our own? How you answer that question is what makes you a Liberal Democrat.”

            With regard to the topic at hand, I’m not sure that this makes any actual sense. You seem to have some inconsistent and contradictory definitional problems brother. The Rule of Law is a fundamental institution of our modern democratic state. Are you defining everyone who believes in the Rule of Law as “liberal Democrats”? Do you think true Republicans believe in lawlessness? You sound like a lawyer who, just because he lost one case in court, now is childishly whining on the court house steps that he hates courts. 😄

            Like

          11. @tsalmon

            Doesn’t make any sense to you? Well, given your starting assumption, that’s to be expected.

            Sophistry is the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving. Your fallacious argument is that same sex marriage can’t happen. My argument is simply reality – in every legal way, it is happening every day.

            The nonsense you advocate is nothing new.The Emperor Nero had a boy castrated. Then he married the boy. Nero’s word was law. That marriage was legal. As you would say, “simply reality.”

            Was Nero married to that boy in truth? No. God’s law is higher than man’s law. Unfortunately, some people who should know better think what is legal is both true and right.

            When we make laws that are immoral, those laws are unwise. Since politicians are too often ambitious and untrustworthy (Who in his right mind trusts Congress to do the right thing?), wisdom dictates avoiding governmental solutions whenever possible. In fact, we should suspect people who constantly propose governmental solutions of being naive, foolish, or devious.

            Like

          12. My argument is simply reality – in every legal way, it is happening every day.

            Sometimes the law is an ass.
            Currently it is legal to dress a little boy like a bachata bazi and have him for dollars dance at a gay sex club. I guess that makes it okay.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. Legality is a separate issue. I’m not sure that that kind of thing is moral even if it is in a straight club. Right now it is also legal to dress and paint your 6 year old little girl up like a prostitute and have her strut on a stage to impress people with her, uh, beauty. Should that be criminalized?

            Like

          14. “The nonsense you advocate is nothing new.The Emperor Nero had a boy castrated. Then he married the boy. Nero’s word was law. That marriage was legal. As you would say, ‘simply reality.’”

            Ha! And a married couple who has sex using birth control is the same as Caligula orgies. Homicide in self defense is the same as genocide. An NFL coach patting a player on his butt is sexual assault.😂

            You know that we are talking about consenting adults here. When your analogies sink to the level of forced castration, pedophilia, child exploitation, rape or carnal knowledge with animals, then you’ve obvious run out of reasonable legal arguments. You do know that people have done some God awful stuff in the name of heterosexual marriage too, don’t you?

            As for knowing the particular sex that an infinite God hates, I’ll leave that to you. I have no idea, but you absolutely have the right to any religious opinion that you want. However, under the 1st Amendment, you just can’t have the government establish your religion as law. So far the only arguments that you have made that weren’t ridiculously over-the-top have been purely a matter of religious dispute. But keep em coming cause they are scandalously interesting. Didn’t some empress of Russia have a thing about horses?

            Like

          15. @tsalmon

            When they staryed playing games with definition of words and lying about what the Bible and the Constitution says, we ceased to have any good reason to believe LGBTQACD… “rights” advocates. When they switched from asking us to ignore what they do in bed to insisting we affirm their “marriages”,… And you are trying to ridicule somebody who thinks that evilly absurd?

            Consent? The party of infanticide is worried about consent?

            You are trying to make fun of someone who knows Democrats are frauds. You are wasting your time. When you vote for people who hate belief in God, where do get the gall to condemn Christians for forcing their religious beliefs on others. And you raise that for something as stupid as same sex marriage?

            You call yourself a Christian, and the candidates you support actively detest Catholics and Conservative Protestants. It is a wonder they put up with you. Since you are a white male, maybe they just enjoy hearing you whine about all your privileges. Well, don’t worry. If people like you keep voting for Democrats, we will all be equally broke, except for the robbers robbing our big government.

            Like

          16. Tom,

            If there an actual rational argument, it eludes me. I’m not sure how to respond to a scattershot rant. Also, I don’t represent the Democratic Party and feel no need to defend them on everything that they do or don’t do.

            I guess this means the actual debate has ended and the polemic haranguing has begun. Fun as it might be to just vent our spleens on each other for a while, I’m just not feeling the hate these days, especially not against you brother.

            Like

          17. @tsalmon

            Have you ever been on the receiving end of one of your Trump rants.

            You vote Democrat. When you comment here you quite clearly represent their views, and there is no rational argument for same-sex marriage. So you have yet to make one.

            Like

          18. “Have you ever been on the receiving end of one of your Trump rants.”

            Point taken, but my criticism is not against every Trump policy. Even a blind squirrel gets an acorn every now and then (and Trump is one hell of a blind squirrel when it comes to policy knowledge – he appears to work on pure blind survival instinct). I simply believe that Trump promotes vice as virtue. No matter whether or not I may even actually like some of the things that Trump does, or even if I sympathize with his situation on some issues, I find that his unabashed lack of integrity is ultimately corrupting to the presidency and the country. Much as you cannot seem to fathom this, I sincerely feel that my position on this is not tribal, just upon the principles that I honor.

            I’ve voted for Democrats and Republicans throughout my life. My loyalties are based upon my principles, not a Political Party. If we had a parliamentary system, then I might refine my tribal loyalties down to a single Party that perfectly fit my principles, but as it is, it is an election by election choice of the best, often imperfect match. Right now I honestly don’t think that I can be a Christian and have perfect loyalty to either Party – they both have different forms of corruption.

            As for gay marriage, I’ve given you the rational legal argument as best that I can. I’m not a gay person, but I try to empathize. You’ve given me the dogmatic argument of only one religious sentiment amoung many religious sentiments. Our Constitution does not allow the establishment of a single religion.

            Like

          19. @tsalmon

            By DEFINITION, marriage is between a man and a woman. A judge cannot charge that. He can only lie.

            That DEFINITION does not exist because any man created marriage; it exists because it recognizes what is.

            What is the religious aspect of marriage? That is treat the relationship that produces children as sacred. Fornication does not do that. By DEFINITION, fornication reduces children to irrelevance. Those who engage in fornication by DEFINITION reduce their partners to toys, objects to play with.

            Like

          20. That makes yours a simple semantic dispute, Tom. Under a given religious interpretation of the word “marriage”, you may be right in that two people of the same sex can’t be married.

            However, what we are talking about here is the definition of “marriage” in a legal sense, meaning what rights and responsibilities implied by a legal marriage contract can be defined (or redefined), arbitrated and enforced at law. That definition of marriage has been changing for centuries. For example, at one time in some jurisdictions, a married woman could not own property on her own, could not oppose the sexual advances of her husband, just to name a couple rights and responsibilities that have changed at law. When a woman said to her husband, “I own this”, the husband could say, “By the legal definition of “marriage, you simply don’t my dear.”

            Like

          21. @tsalmon

            Judges interpret the law. If it is already clearly in writing, judges have no reason to surmise what the writers intended.

            You and I both know the judges who created crap like same sex “marriage” and a “right” to kill an unborn child just rendered decisions that suited their personal prejudices. You also know why that is wrong.

            Like

          22. TSalmon, I think you know that if a nine year old girl served as “entertainment” at a strip club the place would be shut down. This behavior is only tolerated from homosexuals. This because the primary method of delegitimizing all moral considerations is to just paint those who oppose you as bigots (think Nelson from the Simpsons…just point and say “ha! ha!).

            ”You know that we are talking about consenting adults here. When your analogies sink to the level of forced castration, pedophilia, child exploitation, rape or carnal knowledge with animals, then you’ve obvious run out of reasonable legal arguments.”

            You’ve cited that marriage is a fundamental human right….marriage between whom and why? I guess it’s best to point to outlier arguments as absurdities, but it wasn’t long ago that homosexual marriage was an outlier absurdity (Obama was elected as a candidate against it).

            Remember the cases on which this “fundamental rights” principle is based:
            -Lovington was about miscegenation statutes (aka children-which the couple had already in fact produced together).
            That case cited Skinner and Maynard.
            -Skinner indicated, to wit: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival (our existence and survival requires: children
            -Maynard indicated: Marriage is “the foundation of the family and society” (family=children)

            Then the argument by gay activists and their allies is ….well, um….since we don’t demand fertility testing for every marriage license two men can marry.
            Yeah, that’s a sound basis for support of the “foundation of family” and “existence and survival of the species” arguments. It’s pretty implicit when I’m not allowed to marry my brother or father, and required a rubella immunization that reproduction has something to do with this.
            Further, although Love (referenced above) was the basis for homosexual marriage it is worth noting that the demographic who would in theory have the most empathy for that argument have rejected it overwhelmingly.

            Like

          23. @Liz,

            You’ve been reading all the cases? That’s really great! You really should go to law school. To do this justice (forgive the pun), we would both have to write a treatise, and in particular, read (or in my case reread) apply and distinguish all the cases, including the most recent case affording gay rights. This platform just doesn’t alliw that capability even if we had the time and Tom would let us. I do, however, applaud your effort here.

            However, I would like to critique one of your general points as being reductionist. If the “only” legal purpose of the marriage contract were the protection of children, then old people could not get married, and the law would have no need to define, arbitrate and enforce the numerous other rights and responsibilities implied by the marriage contract.

            Like I said, at one time, I have studied domestic law at length and practiced it for a few years in the courts. My expertise is aging, but I can tell you that child custody and support was only one, albeit very important, aspect of the law that I practiced.

            You are smart enough to know that this reductionist argument is an oversimplification of a body of domestics laws on everything from property distribution to inheritance rights that has developed over centuries, and which are all part and parcel of the fundamental right to marry.

            Like

          24. “I think you know that if a nine year old girl served as “
            ‘entertainment’ at a strip club the place would be shut down. This behavior is only tolerated from homosexuals. This because the primary method of delegitimizing all moral considerations is to just paint those who oppose you as bigots (think Nelson from the Simpsons…just point and say ‘ha! ha!’).”

            Ha! (Said in humor, not contempt). If the issue were only your perception of an unequal standard being applied by the newly “woke” majority against a minority of politically incorrect religious traditionalists, I don’t dispute it. A lack of compassion and reason by the self righteous on both sides can lead to some hurt feelings. No one likes to have what they feel that they cannot help be called “abomination” anymore than devout believers like to have their long held traditional beliefs called “bigotry”.

            I don’t know how to force people to act civilly with love and empathy rather than their more hate filled emotions. Both sides can point out atrocities of false equivalency that just heighten these angry emotions and turn reasoned civil debate into a shouting match of escalating anecdotal grievances. I’m not sure how we can legislate away everything that shocks everyone’s moral conscience.

            All I can do is try to be as decent as I can myself, while knowing that I too can be an ass sometimes. For the most part, however, I think that we are trying to have a civil debate here, don’t you think?

            Like

    2. So, Tom, as a Catholic, a baptized Protestant married in a protestant service, I would consider married because the Catholic Church does as well, as it is assumed the marriage is valid unless a tribunal of the Church, if ever investigated determined otherwise.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. @tsalmon

      Government exists to protect our rights. I don’t have the right to walk up to you and demand that you recognize my “marriage” to my dog. On the other hand, the government has a charter to protect children. Therefore, the government does not recognize marriages for religious reasons. It recognizes marriages so that children have identifiable guardians. Same-sex relationships are about fornication, not producing children. So you are conflating two unrelated issues.

      1. If someone is operating a business, they are not going to turn away business frivolously. So why waste your time worrying about this? Nothing in the Constitution charters the Federal Government to do anything about this. It doesn’t involve interstate commerce.
      2. Depends on state law. Not a Federal issue. See answer to #1.
      3. See my answer to #1.
      4. If someone worships Molech and sacrifices babies to his god, there is a problem. If someone find orgies in his hotel disagreeable, where is the problem? Why should you care? If you find someone’s behavior repugnant, do you want to be forced to approve of it?
      5.This is a question better put to Liberal Democrats. Do words like homophobic, racist, sexist, age discrimination, Islamophobia, and so forth mean anything to you?
      6. Since God made each of us in His image, we belong to Him. We judge each other’s actions to defend each other, not to boss each other about.

      Like

    4. Hypothetical responses to your hypothetical questions:
      1. If I own a hotel, should I be allowed to make you stay in separate rooms on your honeymoon night based on my religious belief that you are not really married?
      A: Married to whom? Multiple women? 11 year olds? Siblings? Animals? Is a private business ever allowed to make such distinctions? Should they be?

      2. If I am the Clerk of Court, should I be able to refuse to issue you a marriage license based upon my religious belief that your Protestant service is not a traditional marriage, unnatural and invalid?
      If you are a clerk of the court, you are working for the government and must abide by its rules. The only way to protest is to quit in such cases (same as if you were working for a private business…then you must abide by the business’ rules, or quit and work for another and/or start your own business).

      3. Should people be allowed to refuse to rent to you or sell you a house together, let you buy and own property together
      See first response. If it’s my property, I sell it to whom I want. My rental, I rent to whom I want.

      not allow you to see your spouse in the hospital when very sick
      False dilemma. There are plenty of ways to allow for visitation rights in such cases that don’t require a government sanctioned marriage contract.

      keep you from automatically inheriting with spousal privileges
      See above
      and all the other rights and responsibilities that are implied by the marriage contract, all solely based upon our town’s religious discrimination?
      See above

      See first response for #4 and #5.

      When do I just get to constantly, publicly shame you?
      6. Who am I to judge?

      Funny that last bit, considering public shaming tactics are and were exactly the way homosexuals forced such policy into legislation.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Amen, Tom. I’ve long been fascinated by the definition of tolerance, because to tolerate means to endure or suffer something wrong. So when our culture starts hollering about tolerance, they are actually naming something, bad, evil, unpleasant, undesirable, that must be endured. And of course as your post says, we have now moved on from tolerance to mandatory acceptance, and full affirmation. That now requires us to take what is bad and call it good. It’s even worse than hypocrisy, it’s an attempt to redefine reality, to deconstruct the very standard we use to measure such things in the first place. When we take away the whole standard, we soon move to other things like well, what’s wrong with pedophilia? That would sound crazy a few years ago, but right on schedule advocacy groups are forming, “rights” are being spoken of, “lifestyle choices” are being promoted.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @IB

      Good description of the problem.

      Because Liberal Democrats control our education system and the news media, they can greatly influence the language. They can change the meaning of words. Obviously, they would like to change the meanings of “discrimination” and “tolerance.” They want to tell us discrimination is never appropriate except against those they define as intolerant. It is time we stopped letting them getting away with such nonsense.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. “Affirming something we don’t like, however, is far worse. That demands hypocrisy from us.” – BOOM!

    That’s the kind of statement that will cause BOTH sides to open fire on you. Nicely done.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Interesting timing. The bible study I have been watching is covering Romans.

    28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

    That sounds scarily familiar. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.

Theo-Logis

Supplying the Light of Love

Level_Head

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

Allallt in discussion

Debate and discussion: Reasonable, rational and fair

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

TLP

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

Amatopia

Author Alexander Hellene - Sci-Fi - Urban Fantasy - Fantasy - Culture - Art - Entertainment - Music - Fun

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

Because The Bible Wasn't Written In English

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Fr. Pietraszko's Corner

Discovering Truth and Love

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Healthy Mind Ministry

Sharing the Gospel message of hope, strength, love, and peace through Jesus Christ to those who are hurting in their soul or spirit. This is the mission of Healthy Mind Ministry

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

Communio

"Fear Not, Only Believe." Mk. 5:36

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

College Professor

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

Running The Race

Hebrews 12:1

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: