When would slavery in the Southern States have ended...

Page 16 of 18 [ 276 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next


When would Slavery have ended, had Lincoln not intervened?
By 1875 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
By 1900 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
By 1925 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
By 1950 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
By 1975 12%  12%  [ 6 ]
By 2000 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
By 2025 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Never 26%  26%  [ 13 ]
Just show the results 16%  16%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 50

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

20 Jun 2012, 5:58 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
But at the same time, it's also true that a Christian church has faced legal action for barring a same-sex wedding ceremony on its own property. What happened was that the facility was supposed to be open to the public. A gay couple wanted to get married there, at which point the church raised an objection. They in turn sued the church for discrimination.

Article


First of all, while the owner of the property was a religious institution, the property in question was not, itself, a church. This was a "retreat house" that was owned and operated by a religious organization, but rented to the public for other uses.

Second, the church was not compelled to celebrate the marriage--the marriage was to have been conducted by civil officiant.

A church's practice of religious services are generally immune from civil interference (but those human sacrifices are still gonna be stopped! :wink: ) but when a religious institution seeks to enter the marketplace and operate a social enterprise, then that enterprise must be run in a fashion that is consistent with the law. A religious institution ceases to enjoy its constitutional immunity at the moment when it ceases to restrict itself to worship service, the preaching of scripture and the teaching of doctrine.

A Roman Catholic hospital cannot refuse to treat a homosexual patient, a Christian school cannot expel a homosexual student, and a Christian owned rental property cannot refuse to rent to a homosexual couple.


I would point out the following fallacies in your logic:
1. A Hospital wouldn't refuse to treat someone based on their sexual orientation, quite frankly they wouldn't even ask that question...
2. Unless we're talking about high school or college students I think children are too young to know what their sexual orientation is, and if they think they know what it is before they are teenage at the minimum, I would honestly suspect they are victims of child abuse.
3. Not allowing someone to get married on church property is not even remotely equivalent to human sacrifices (which are not allowed in Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religions anyways).

What the hell?


_________________
.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

20 Jun 2012, 5:59 pm

AngelRho wrote:
What bothers me about the whole thing, though, is the couple that got barred from having a ceremony there seems to have been well aware that the property was owned by a church. It appears to me that something like this is an attempt to coerce or manipulate a religious institution into violating its own values. It's an opening strike in the battle against freedom of religion.

There are churches which are perfectly fine with gay marriages, so they might not have realized that they were dealing with a group of bigots. They might have assumed that 'open to the public' meant 'welcoming to everyone.'



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

20 Jun 2012, 6:21 pm

LKL wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
What bothers me about the whole thing, though, is the couple that got barred from having a ceremony there seems to have been well aware that the property was owned by a church. It appears to me that something like this is an attempt to coerce or manipulate a religious institution into violating its own values. It's an opening strike in the battle against freedom of religion.

There are churches which are perfectly fine with gay marriages, so they might not have realized that they were dealing with a group of bigots. They might have assumed that 'open to the public' meant 'welcoming to everyone.'



Looks to me like the homosexuals in question were the bigots, the fact that some "churches" defy their own religious teachings to be politically correct is immaterial.

The freedom to practice one's religion is the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. What you are suggesting violates the church in question's 1st Amendment Rights, as well as the 14th Amendment rights of the church members.

They didn't have to go to that particular church, it is highly likely they knew that church would stand firm on their religious tenents (and in case you read the Bible (and not some politically correct piece of garbage that some groups are trying to claim is the Bible), you would know that homosexual behavior is considered sinful behavior), and are trying to force homosexuality onto a religious institution in violation of that religion's beliefs.

If they don't like that fact, too bad, and it points to another reason why homosexual marriage shouldn't be legalized, because next homosexual groups will be going after pastors, priests, rabbi, etc. because they are preaching that homosexual behavior is sinful (accusing them of "Hate Speech"). Don't tell me that is only a hypothetical because homosexual groups have tried to do this, both in the USA and UK for starters.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

20 Jun 2012, 7:51 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
What bothers me about the whole thing, though, is the couple that got barred from having a ceremony there seems to have been well aware that the property was owned by a church. It appears to me that something like this is an attempt to coerce or manipulate a religious institution into violating its own values. It's an opening strike in the battle against freedom of religion.

There are churches which are perfectly fine with gay marriages, so they might not have realized that they were dealing with a group of bigots. They might have assumed that 'open to the public' meant 'welcoming to everyone.'



Looks to me like the homosexuals in question were the bigots, the fact that some "churches" defy their own religious teachings to be politically correct is immaterial.

The freedom to practice one's religion is the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. What you are suggesting violates the church in question's 1st Amendment Rights, as well as the 14th Amendment rights of the church members.

They didn't have to go to that particular church, it is highly likely they knew that church would stand firm on their religious tenents (and in case you read the Bible (and not some politically correct piece of garbage that some groups are trying to claim is the Bible), you would know that homosexual behavior is considered sinful behavior), and are trying to force homosexuality onto a religious institution in violation of that religion's beliefs.

If they don't like that fact, too bad, and it points to another reason why homosexual marriage shouldn't be legalized, because next homosexual groups will be going after pastors, priests, rabbi, etc. because they are preaching that homosexual behavior is sinful (accusing them of "Hate Speech"). Don't tell me that is only a hypothetical because homosexual groups have tried to do this, both in the USA and UK for starters.

The couple in questions were lesbians, which the bible says didly about.
The bible says more against tattoos and eating pork than it does against lesbianism.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

20 Jun 2012, 7:57 pm

LKL wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
What bothers me about the whole thing, though, is the couple that got barred from having a ceremony there seems to have been well aware that the property was owned by a church. It appears to me that something like this is an attempt to coerce or manipulate a religious institution into violating its own values. It's an opening strike in the battle against freedom of religion.

There are churches which are perfectly fine with gay marriages, so they might not have realized that they were dealing with a group of bigots. They might have assumed that 'open to the public' meant 'welcoming to everyone.'



Looks to me like the homosexuals in question were the bigots, the fact that some "churches" defy their own religious teachings to be politically correct is immaterial.

The freedom to practice one's religion is the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. What you are suggesting violates the church in question's 1st Amendment Rights, as well as the 14th Amendment rights of the church members.

They didn't have to go to that particular church, it is highly likely they knew that church would stand firm on their religious tenents (and in case you read the Bible (and not some politically correct piece of garbage that some groups are trying to claim is the Bible), you would know that homosexual behavior is considered sinful behavior), and are trying to force homosexuality onto a religious institution in violation of that religion's beliefs.

If they don't like that fact, too bad, and it points to another reason why homosexual marriage shouldn't be legalized, because next homosexual groups will be going after pastors, priests, rabbi, etc. because they are preaching that homosexual behavior is sinful (accusing them of "Hate Speech"). Don't tell me that is only a hypothetical because homosexual groups have tried to do this, both in the USA and UK for starters.

The couple in questions were lesbians, which the bible says didly about.
The bible says more against tattoos and eating pork than it does against lesbianism.


:roll:

Doesn't change the fact lesbianism is a form of homosexual behavior.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

20 Jun 2012, 8:05 pm

The bible says squat about "homosexuality." What it says is that a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman, and precious little else - which could just as easily mean, 'don't have boy/girl anal sex, because girls don't have the prostate necessary to enjoy the game.'



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

20 Jun 2012, 8:43 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
But at the same time, it's also true that a Christian church has faced legal action for barring a same-sex wedding ceremony on its own property. What happened was that the facility was supposed to be open to the public. A gay couple wanted to get married there, at which point the church raised an objection. They in turn sued the church for discrimination.

Article


First of all, while the owner of the property was a religious institution, the property in question was not, itself, a church. This was a "retreat house" that was owned and operated by a religious organization, but rented to the public for other uses.

Second, the church was not compelled to celebrate the marriage--the marriage was to have been conducted by civil officiant.

A church's practice of religious services are generally immune from civil interference (but those human sacrifices are still gonna be stopped! :wink: ) but when a religious institution seeks to enter the marketplace and operate a social enterprise, then that enterprise must be run in a fashion that is consistent with the law. A religious institution ceases to enjoy its constitutional immunity at the moment when it ceases to restrict itself to worship service, the preaching of scripture and the teaching of doctrine.

A Roman Catholic hospital cannot refuse to treat a homosexual patient, a Christian school cannot expel a homosexual student, and a Christian owned rental property cannot refuse to rent to a homosexual couple.


I would point out the following fallacies in your logic:
1. A Hospital wouldn't refuse to treat someone based on their sexual orientation, quite frankly they wouldn't even ask that question...
2. Unless we're talking about high school or college students I think children are too young to know what their sexual orientation is, and if they think they know what it is before they are teenage at the minimum, I would honestly suspect they are victims of child abuse.
3. Not allowing someone to get married on church property is not even remotely equivalent to human sacrifices (which are not allowed in Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religions anyways).

What the hell?

He's just trying to be funny.



countzarroff
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 401
Location: Massachusetts

20 Jun 2012, 11:14 pm

Sorry to my southern friends, but probably never. Sadly, we've never really been a country that accepts change without a little violence. Then again, its not like that isn't true for most other places in the world. Fascism in Germany probably would have never ended without violence. I'm not saying all southerners are racist, (to be honest, people from my home state of Massachusetts can be just as bad, if not worse) but I AM saying that without war, slavery would still be here.

I won't be angry at a disagreement with my argument as it may mean some hope for humanity.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Jun 2012, 11:37 am

Inuyasha wrote:
I would point out the following fallacies in your logic:
1. A Hospital wouldn't refuse to treat someone based on their sexual orientation, quite frankly they wouldn't even ask that question...


Do a little research. I'll point you to the suit of Mr. Joao Simoes against Trinitas Medical Center in Elizabeth NJ.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/01/47019.htm

I will grant you that these allegations have not yet been proven in court--but the mere fact of the allegation ought properly to give you pause. The complaint alleges that Dr. Borga directly asked whether Mr. Simoes acquired HIV from unprotected sex with a man, she then proceeded to refuse to treat him on that basis.

So it appears that, in fact, yes a hospital would refuse, and more than that, would actually ask that question.

Quote:
2. Unless we're talking about high school or college students I think children are too young to know what their sexual orientation is, and if they think they know what it is before they are teenage at the minimum, I would honestly suspect they are victims of child abuse.


So let's restrict ourselves to high school students who are self-identified as gay. Or who become self-identified as gay during the time that they are enrolled in a Roman Catholic school. The Church may not withdraw education services to that child on that basis. The point still stands.

Quote:
3. Not allowing someone to get married on church property is not even remotely equivalent to human sacrifices (which are not allowed in Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religions anyways).


Hence the litting winkie emoticon. But that was meant to point out that not all religious practices are protected by law--and the state will step in when religious practice violates public law to such an extent that their constitutional protection is an affront to the principles of a free and democratic society.

Religious congregations do not exist outside the law. They are extended privileges that are not extended to other associations, but those privileges are not absolute.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Jun 2012, 1:26 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I would point out the following fallacies in your logic:
1. A Hospital wouldn't refuse to treat someone based on their sexual orientation, quite frankly they wouldn't even ask that question...


Do a little research. I'll point you to the suit of Mr. Joao Simoes against Trinitas Medical Center in Elizabeth NJ.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/01/47019.htm

I will grant you that these allegations have not yet been proven in court--but the mere fact of the allegation ought properly to give you pause. The complaint alleges that Dr. Borga directly asked whether Mr. Simoes acquired HIV from unprotected sex with a man, she then proceeded to refuse to treat him on that basis.

So it appears that, in fact, yes a hospital would refuse, and more than that, would actually ask that question.


While HIV is life threatening, it is not something like a gun-shot wound where you can die if you don't get immediate treatment...

The person in question can always go see another doctor, this isn't a situation like someone just had a heart-attack.

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
2. Unless we're talking about high school or college students I think children are too young to know what their sexual orientation is, and if they think they know what it is before they are teenage at the minimum, I would honestly suspect they are victims of child abuse.


So let's restrict ourselves to high school students who are self-identified as gay. Or who become self-identified as gay during the time that they are enrolled in a Roman Catholic school. The Church may not withdraw education services to that child on that basis. The point still stands.


Uh Catholic Schools generally frown on the idea of students being sexually active on school grounds. Furthermore, if you don't like the rules in a religious school, here's a novel concept, go to a different school! This isn't rocket science.

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
3. Not allowing someone to get married on church property is not even remotely equivalent to human sacrifices (which are not allowed in Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religions anyways).


Hence the litting winkie emoticon. But that was meant to point out that not all religious practices are protected by law--and the state will step in when religious practice violates public law to such an extent that their constitutional protection is an affront to the principles of a free and democratic society.


The example you gave was comparing apples to porcupines, they aren't even remotely similar.

visagrunt wrote:
Religious congregations do not exist outside the law. They are extended privileges that are not extended to other associations, but those privileges are not absolute.


There are also limits on what Government can impose on Religious institutions, and you are crossing that line. The church has every right under the 1st Amendment to refuse to marry homosexual couples.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

21 Jun 2012, 1:51 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
There are also limits on what Government can impose on Religious institutions, and you are crossing that line. The church has every right under the 1st Amendment to refuse to marry homosexual couples.


I hate to break it to you, but the first amendment doesn't apply in Canada.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

21 Jun 2012, 1:54 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
There are also limits on what Government can impose on Religious institutions, and you are crossing that line. The church has every right under the 1st Amendment to refuse to marry homosexual couples.


I hate to break it to you, but the first amendment doesn't apply in Canada.


What? That is simply an un-American thing to say


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Jun 2012, 1:58 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
There are also limits on what Government can impose on Religious institutions, and you are crossing that line. The church has every right under the 1st Amendment to refuse to marry homosexual couples.


I hate to break it to you, but the first amendment doesn't apply in Canada.


Glad I live in a country where my religious liberty and my right to free speech is actually protected, unlike people in Canada.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Jun 2012, 1:58 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
While HIV is life threatening, it is not something like a gun-shot wound where you can die if you don't get immediate treatment...

The person in question can always go see another doctor, this isn't a situation like someone just had a heart-attack.


So it's acceptable for a Catholic hospital to say, "no treatment for gays," if they are not in immediate distress?

It's acceptable for an attending physician to refuse to administer drugs prescribed by a patients primary physician that continue to be medically indicated?

Make no mistake, missing doses of antiretrovirals has significant consequences for people who are HIV+. There is no room for error in the administration of these drugs, because once they become ineffective, they are then unavailable ever after. There are a limited number of effective antiretroviral therapies, and fewer still with limited toxicity.

The obligation on the physician is to treat the patient, notwithstanding her personal views, until she can put the patient into the care of a physician who is willing to continue treatment. The obligation is on her to find the other physician, not the patient.

Quote:
Uh Catholic Schools generally frown on the idea of students being sexually active on school grounds. Furthermore, if you don't like the rules in a religious school, here's a novel concept, go to a different school! This isn't rocket science.


Who said anything about being sexually active?

And since when does a child--even a child in high school--get to make the decision about where they are enrolled. Once a parent has enrolled a child, the school is under a positive duty to teach the child.

Quote:
The example you gave was comparing apples to porcupines, they aren't even remotely similar.


It still stands for the principle that religious institutions are not immune from public law.

Quote:
There are also limits on what Government can impose on Religious institutions, and you are crossing that line. The church has every right under the 1st Amendment to refuse to marry homosexual couples.


Of course the church has that right. I have always argued that churches have that right. I have never suggested that a member of the clergy of this church could ever be compelled to officiate at any ceremony that was inconsistent with the church's doctrine.

But when a church offers premises that it owns to the public, for public use, then the church must comply with public law. This wasn't a religious use of land, this was a commercial use of land, intended to generate money to support the church generally. Once you step outside the conduct of worship service and the teaching of scripture, then you are outside the protection of religious activity.


_________________
--James


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

21 Jun 2012, 1:59 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
There are also limits on what Government can impose on Religious institutions, and you are crossing that line. The church has every right under the 1st Amendment to refuse to marry homosexual couples.


I hate to break it to you, but the first amendment doesn't apply in Canada.


Glad I live in a country where my religious liberty and my right to free speech is actually protected, unlike people in Canada.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Jun 2012, 2:16 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
While HIV is life threatening, it is not something like a gun-shot wound where you can die if you don't get immediate treatment...

The person in question can always go see another doctor, this isn't a situation like someone just had a heart-attack.


So it's acceptable for a Catholic hospital to say, "no treatment for gays," if they are not in immediate distress?

It's acceptable for an attending physician to refuse to administer drugs prescribed by a patients primary physician that continue to be medically indicated?

Make no mistake, missing doses of antiretrovirals has significant consequences for people who are HIV+. There is no room for error in the administration of these drugs, because once they become ineffective, they are then unavailable ever after. There are a limited number of effective antiretroviral therapies, and fewer still with limited toxicity.

The obligation on the physician is to treat the patient, notwithstanding her personal views, until she can put the patient into the care of a physician who is willing to continue treatment. The obligation is on her to find the other physician, not the patient.


The United States isn't like Canada yet, and hopefully Obamacare is struck down. It doesn't take several weeks to get in to see a doctor over certain medical conditions...

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
Uh Catholic Schools generally frown on the idea of students being sexually active on school grounds. Furthermore, if you don't like the rules in a religious school, here's a novel concept, go to a different school! This isn't rocket science.


Who said anything about being sexually active?

And since when does a child--even a child in high school--get to make the decision about where they are enrolled. Once a parent has enrolled a child, the school is under a positive duty to teach the child.


In the case of college, children are over the age of 18 and are legally adults. In the case of High School, why would you be running around announcing your sexual preference. You're supposed to be learning, math, science, history, etc. in High School, it isn't a strip club...

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
The example you gave was comparing apples to porcupines, they aren't even remotely similar.


It still stands for the principle that religious institutions are not immune from public law.


Never said they were immune, however you need to acknowledge there is a line where public laws can and will be struck down by the courts when laws are passed that violate the 1st Amendment.

visagrunt wrote:
Quote:
There are also limits on what Government can impose on Religious institutions, and you are crossing that line. The church has every right under the 1st Amendment to refuse to marry homosexual couples.


Of course the church has that right. I have always argued that churches have that right. I have never suggested that a member of the clergy of this church could ever be compelled to officiate at any ceremony that was inconsistent with the church's doctrine.


Okay so first you say one thing...

visagrunt wrote:
But when a church offers premises that it owns to the public, for public use, then the church must comply with public law. This wasn't a religious use of land, this was a commercial use of land, intended to generate money to support the church generally. Once you step outside the conduct of worship service and the teaching of scripture, then you are outside the protection of religious activity.


Then you say the exact opposite... Marriage Ceremonies is a religious use of church grounds, and the Church has to be open to the public in order to the congregation to come and worship... By your own standards, you are suggesting that the church has no religious liberties, when just a moment ago you said they did.

Further you are suggesting that churches cannot be involved in any charitable activity, without giving up their religious freedoms, which is a load of garbage.