.PNG.86c267ba976426fdcec79e8cc26aa5f9.PNG)
BergenGuy
-
Posts
183 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by BergenGuy
-
I specifically asked about legal attempts to force a church to change its theology. The situation is probably different in Australia, but I know of no attempts in the US, and you haven't cited any such actions in Australia or the US. In the US there have been suits that allege employment discrimination by church-affiliated schools or church-affiliated adoption agencies with public contracts, but that falls into the area of commerce (which is regulated), not theology.
-
Well, if you are married at the courthouse by a Justice of the Peace, you DO have all the benefits of heterosexual marriages. What I was posting was my opinion that ALL marriages should be civil marriages. If a couple wants a religious ceremony, fine. But, it would be superfluous. The only thing that would legally matter would be the civil marriage. In my view, Alabama does it the right way, albeit for the wrong reasons. In Alabama, a couple completes a form and both signatures are notarized. They submit the form to a probate court with the appropriate fee, and they're married. No marriage license, officiant or ceremony needed. If the couple wants a ceremony, religious or otherwise, they can do so but it is legally irrelevant.
-
Hmm ... we could also ask why, in the US, Blacks sued companies that practiced discrimination? After all, who would want to work in such an antagonistic environment? But, there is no social change without brave pioneers, people willing to take unpopular actions. The examples that you gave were all commerce or employment. Do you have examples of where people sued to force a religion to take a different theological position regarding same-sex marriage?
-
Do you have a link where a church has been taken to court to force it to recognize same-sex marriages? I don't mean a suit against a church in its capacity as an employer, but as a religion? No lawsuit trying to set theological policy for a church would be successful in the US. Workplaces and other business organizations are subject to anti-discrimination laws.
-
I've never met anyone who feels that the law should force churches to recognize same-sex marriage, anymore than they are required to recognize interracial marriages or any other marriage. There are people within the religion to advocate strongly for recognition of same-sex marriages by that faith, but that's an internal matter. That religion either works it out, or it splits apart (as in the case of US Methodists).
-
We need to do away with the idea that a member of the clergy can legally marry a couple. Every marriage should be registered with civil authorities and ONLY those marriages are legally valid. If the couple wants to go on to have a religious ceremony, they can do so but it would have no force of law. The civil recognition would need to be called "marriage" to avoid problems when couples visit other countries that don't recognize "civil unions." Religions can call the ceremony whatever they want.
-
Nothing. As far as I know, all states have repealed laws against interracial marriage. So, the court would feel safe in overturning Loving v. Virginia secure in the knowledge that it wouldn't affect interracial marriages (existing or future) anywhere. We should watch these attempts to overturn marriage equality with concern, but not panic about them. Some state legislator in one state or another is always trying to do hateful things. It doesn't mean that the legislation will pass, or that the courts would allow it to take effect. The fact that Schriver is spouting religious rhetoric is hurting his own case.
-
nymidtowneast never disappoints!
-
.thumb.PNG.84c8c0ebb33e7229ab3a014e793b6d92.PNG)
Yes, I did. That should have been "without". Thanks for catching that. -
Scorpioned – a prequel to "In Sickness".
BergenGuy replied to losthole's topic in Bug Chasing & Gift Giving FICTION
The "more" is in the story "In sickness - A poz love story" that's referenced right above your post. -
Abortion is one area that the polls indicate that the Republicans are out of step with the electorate, except in the most very, very red places. Democrats would be foolish to cede ground on that issue.
-
I'm hoping that when the Republicans try to pass actual legislation the Democrats will finally show some gumption. The Republican majority margin in the House is so thin that they will find it difficult to pass anything with some Democratic votes and the filibuster will help slow things down in the Senate, unless the Republicans foolishly abolish it. But, in the meantime, there's no reason for Democrats to be so silent. How about a media campaign that highlights that of all the things that Trump has done, he hasn't done a damn thing about food prices (yes, I know that is mostly out of his power, but he PROMISED!)? And, he promised to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. The campaign to retake the House and Senate in two years should've started yesterday.
-
How will we know that there's a new AIDS pandemic (or a bird flu pandemic)? It is likely that the information will be withheld by the CDC. Just as I feel that unemployment, CPI and other economic information is likely to be withheld or manipulated. Inflation? What inflation?
-
He is also associated with a group that is suing the FDA because a new version of the polio vaccine was not placebo tested! That's despite the fact that such a trial would be unethical and it is standard practice to trial against an existing vaccine when one exists. Kennedy isn't interested in safety. He's out to eliminate vaccines. Of course, at this point, the COVID vaccines have received far more testing than they ever would undergo in a conventional trial. So, he should just shut up instead of trying to deny everyone else lifesaving vaccines.
-
I've always loved this story. I wish that it had been finished.
-
A law isn't sufficient to allow a third term. It would require a Constitutional amendment and there's no way such an amendment would get enough a 2/3 vote in Congress and a 3/4 vote of the states. As the Constitution is written, a president doesn't have to "leave" the White House. His presidency ends at noon EST on January 20, 2029. It doesn't matter if a successor has been elected and certified. The term of office is over. Hopefully, by that time, a Democrat will be the speaker of the House.
-
Since adult, consensual pornography is not inherently illegal, I think that there would be serious First Amendment issues in trying to ban its production. Porn is a form of expression.
-
The story is hot, but it would be much easier to read if it had some paragraph breaks. A massive block of text is just daunting.
-
Notifications - filtering out comments on pics...
BergenGuy replied to AirmaxUK's topic in Tips, Tricks, Rules & Help
Excellent point. I've also had to unfollow some prolific pic commenters even though I like reading what they have to say when they're responding to full-fledged posts on important issues. I'm curious whether other people think that there's any value in being allowed to comment on library images? -
Were those views merely contrasting opinions or were they presenting objectively false information? Although, either way, I don't agree with pressuring a media outlet over anything. I'm a First Amendment fanatic. However, there is nothing wrong with the government talking with media outlets about how they can help present factual information during, say, a health crisis like COVID. At least, that didn't use to be controversial, These days, there are probably people who object to anti-smoking public service announcements. But, all that has been reported and the Biden administration has ended those conversations. So, again, I'm wondering what "censorship" is Trump ending? Or, is that "censorship" yet another canard like his "war on Christmas"?
-
No, I can't. That's why I was asking what "censorship" that Trump is supposed to ban.
-
"Censorship" by whom? Censorship by the government is already illegal except in certain, very limited, circumstances.
-
I'm sure that there will be some attempts. But, just because a senator, even a majority leader, wants something to happen doesn't mean that it will. I'm not being naïve. But, there are some things that congress people and senators who are facing re-election in two years will not want to face ... and one of them is a lot of very angry older people. What they'll do is more insidious. They just won't do anything. That's politically much easier. All they have to do is hope that Democrats are in power when it finally comes time to reduce Social Security/Medicare benefits due to insufficient funding.
-
He did say that, and then was rapidly, very rapidly, forced to retract it (the typical "I was misunderstood"). Social Security is the third-rail of politics because older people vote at a very high rate. I suspect that there's a number of things that they'll do first before having the stomach to take on Social Security.
-
Some guys do that because some apps are message-limited. Unfortunately, that's also the MO of catfishers. When a guy suggests that very early in the conversation, I just drop him. Otherwise, I know that he's going to be telling me all about cryptocurrency trading.
